All or nothing thinking regarding the Church

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm enjoying the discussion between MfBukowski and hope_for_things.  If nothing else comes from it I just wanted to say thanks to the two of you.  Interesting thoughts.  If it continues than I'm happy all the more. 

Oh well heck we gotta keep you happy dude!   I like your posts too.....   most of the time

 

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess I misunderstood.  I thought we were just discussing the validity of the Callister/Hinckley "all or nothing" paradigm.  I'm not sure I agree that it is valid based on the question I've asked you a couple times (but which you haven't answered -- I guess because we were talking about different things).

Well I have always said that belief in Book of Mormon historicity is a RELIGIOUS position, and not about "what really happened"

We do not know and never will have an objective way of understanding ANY historical position when it comes to capturing motivation or reading the minds of the participants.  Yes we know when the Battle of Gettysburg happened etc, and that it "really happened" on a given date at a given place, etc and we can research 

So for me, Elder Callister's understanding of his religion the way he does is PART of his religion- as my understanding of my religion is part of mine.

It's a meta-question or what is known as a "meta-narrative" that goes to the core of how we see the world.

I think Elder Callister  is a brilliant man.  Did you see how well he did in that teaching councils broadcast?  I have always enjoyed his talks and found him inspirational and there is no way that I would want to detract one iota from anything he says or we think he believes.  He is an inspired man.

So YES there are people who do not even need to believe that Jesus existed to worship the Archetype he represents.  BUT that position is as much a part of their RELIGION as Elder C's more literalistic way of seeing it

We need to understand that there are people who essentially worship Archetypes without ANY literalism, and in fact most of the world believes in this way.  I do not think that many of the worshipers of Ganesha in India for example, think that there was literally a boy with the head of an elephant.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesha   I have known devotees of Ganesha and they certainly do not see it that way.

Most here I would think would say that the resurrection "really happened" despite the obvious fact that people do not come back from the dead- yet their belief in Christ may hinge on that religious belief even if there is absolutely no historical evidence for it "actually happening" except the alleged conduct of the apostles in their later lives- IF THEY even existed except in parables.  I would defend those folks on the same basis.  That is part of their religion to think that the resurrection literally happened.   I see no difference between their point of view and that of Elder Callister.  They believe that literal historicity is a requirement of believing the gospel.

All I personally "know for sure" is that there is a Person other than myself "out there" who knows me and "has my back", and that through righteous behavior, my link to that person becomes stronger.   I know that by direct experience and cannot doubt it.  The rest is the construction of a paradigm to explain that experiential fact, and I do that through pragmatism and the philosophy I have learned.

Maybe you could ask me again and I will try again?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I have always said that belief in Book of Mormon historicity is a RELIGIOUS position, and not about "what really happened"

We do not know and never will have an objective way of understanding ANY historical position when it comes to capturing motivation or reading the minds of the participants.  Yes we know when the Battle of Gettysburg happened etc, and that it "really happened" on a given date at a given place, etc and we can research 

So for me, Elder Callister's understanding of his religion the way he does is PART of his religion- as my understanding of my religion is part of mine.

It's a meta-question or what is known as a "meta-narrative" that goes to the core of how we see the world.

I think Elder Callister  is a brilliant man.  Did you see how well he did in that teaching councils broadcast?  I have always enjoyed his talks and found him inspirational and there is no way that I would want to detract one iota from anything he says or we think he believes.  He is an inspired man.

So YES there are people who do not even need to believe that Jesus existed to worship the Archetype he represents.  BUT that position is as much a part of their RELIGION as Elder C's more literalistic way of seeing it

We need to understand that there are people who essentially worship Archetypes without ANY literalism, and in fact most of the world believes in this way.  I do not think that many of the worshipers of Ganesha in India for example, think that there was literally a boy with the head of an elephant.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesha   I have known devotees of Ganesha and they certainly do not see it that way.

Most here I would think would say that the resurrection "really happened" despite the obvious fact that people do not come back from the dead- yet their belief in Christ may hinge on that religious belief even if there is absolutely no historical evidence for it "actually happening" except the alleged conduct of the apostles in their later lives- IF THEY even existed except in parables.  I would defend those folks on the same basis.  That is part of their religion to think that the resurrection literally happened.   I see no difference between their point of view and that of Elder Callister.  They believe that literal historicity is a requirement of believing the gospel.

All I personally "know for sure" is that there is a Person other than myself "out there" who knows me and "has my back", and that through righteous behavior, my link to that person becomes stronger.   I know that by direct experience and cannot doubt it.  The rest is the construction of a paradigm to explain that experiential fact, and I do that through pragmatism and the philosophy I have learned.

Maybe you could ask me again and I will try again?

With regard to the specific dichotomy referenced in the OP:  If Joseph Smith being a true prophet and the Book of Mormon being "true" (which I interpret to based on the book's own claims) make the current mainstream LDS Church "true" (i.e. not fraudulent to its claims) then why do those facts also not make the other Mormon religious branches "true"?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

With regard to the specific dichotomy referenced in the OP:  If Joseph Smith being a true prophet and the Book of Mormon being "true" (which I interpret to based on the book's own claims) make the current mainstream LDS Church "true" (i.e. not fraudulent to its claims) then why do those facts also not make the other Mormon religious branches "true"?

The Church as the earthly kingdom is not a branch but the whole tree. The keys keep the tree alive as divinely designed, and non-transformable. Without the keys, offshoots mutate and while they might survive in a fashion, they do not compliment the tree in any way (the keys are not transferable).

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

With regard to the specific dichotomy referenced in the OP:  If Joseph Smith being a true prophet and the Book of Mormon being "true" (which I interpret to based on the book's own claims) make the current mainstream LDS Church "true" (i.e. not fraudulent to its claims) then why do those facts also not make the other Mormon religious branches "true"?

They do make them true for their believers.  Truth is contextual and based on a given community.  That is why others can receive legitimate testimonies that it is the will of God to join say, The Salvation Army as their "true" denomination if they are drunks on skid row and is the only source of Christianity available to them at the time.

If a different sect of Mormonism is the only religious truth available to members of those churches, I believe it is better for them to be there than if they were worldly and immoral atheists. (Yes there are moral atheists who are spiritual- that is not the point, but an anticipated objection)

In my opinion, the Christian model or paradigm is better than other non-Christian paradigms because it includes family values, forgiveness of one's enemies etc.  So for my any Christian paradigm is better than a non-Christian paradigm.   I believe LDS Mormonism is the best available "truth" available to us ( the "most true church) but as we ourselves teach there are true principles in all churches.   Moral atheists have a better paradigm than totally immoral atheists who are nearly sociopaths, for example.

So for me there are infinite gradations of grey from animalistic atavism to the pure love of humanity as represented by Christ.  As long as you are moving closer to Christ, you are on the right path of progression, which is the main goal.  It is about "becoming" not about thinking you have "arrived".   We never "arrive" short of exaltation.   I think even Mormonism will not be necessary for example eventually on the road to exaltation- but it is the best we have in this life.  Eventually we will move beyond the need for the church, but no one alive is there yet except Christ himself as an exemplar.

Edited November 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

With regard to the specific dichotomy referenced in the OP:  If Joseph Smith being a true prophet and the Book of Mormon being "true" (which I interpret to based on the book's own claims) make the current mainstream LDS Church "true" (i.e. not fraudulent to its claims) then why do those facts also not make the other Mormon religious branches "true"?

This presumes there is one objective "truth" to which the statements found in Mormonism correspond perfectly.  The correspondence theory of truth is inadequate, and it especially cannot be justified within religious discourse.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

The view that there is such a "truth" is not LDS doctrine (Per Moroni 10, Alma 32, and DC 93 among others) and is in fact the basis for black and white thinking.  So you are tacitly assuming black and white thinking while decrying it.

 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They do make them true for their believers.  Truth is contextual and based on a given community.  That is why others can receive legitimate testimonies that it is the will of God to join say, The Salvation Army as their "true" denomination if they are drunks on skid row and is the only source of Christianity available to them at the time.

If a different sect of Mormonism is the only religious truth available to members of those churches, I believe it is better for them to be there than if they were worldly and immoral atheists. (Yes there are moral atheists who are spiritual- that is not the point, but an anticipated objection)

In my opinion, the Christian model or paradigm is better than other non-Christian paradigms because it includes family values, forgiveness of one's enemies etc.  So for my any Christian paradigm is better than a non-Christian paradigm.   I believe LDS Mormonism is the best available "truth" available to us ( the "most true church) but as we ourselves teach there are true principles in all churches.   Moral atheists have a better paradigm than totally immoral atheists who are nearly sociopaths, for example.

So for me there are infinite gradations of grey from animalistic atavism to the pure love of humanity as represented by Christ.  As long as you are moving closer to Christ, you are on the right path of progression, which is the main goal.  It is about "becoming" not about thinking you have "arrived".   We never "arrive" short of exaltation.   I think even Mormonism will not be necessary for example eventually on the road to exaltation- but it is the best we have in this life.  Eventually we will move beyond the need for the church, but no one alive is there yet except Christ himself as an exemplar.

Okay... so what I am getting from you is that you can't or won't defend the Callister/Hinckley dichotomy presented in the OP from a logical perspective.  You support it as a statement of belief or faith.  I get that.  But it fails when analyzed at face value.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

While there is no means by which we can objectively prove that Elder Callister's paradigm is incorrect or correct, as you point out.  I do think we can judge the societal merit of Callister's position by its fruits and by its implications about what kind of a God his perspective requires.  

Fruits - Strong commitment from the in-group Mormons that agree with his paradigm.  Followers devoted, committed to a fault.  Very little influence outside their in group, followers generally consider themselves superior to outsiders, God's chosen people.  

The God paradigm - God has a select group of favored creations.  God wants to bring others into this group, but is statistically ineffective over the history of the world, God has converted less than 1% of the living people to this exclusive club.  God's corrective mechanism is to convert people in the spirit world, but this makes us question the purpose of this life at all.  God is a God of literal reality, rules are most important, and allegiance to these beliefs.  God leaves out people on the margins if they aren't willing to prescribe to the right rules and rituals.  

Now, I'm summarizing and generalizing quite a bit. but I'm doing this for a purpose.  You say that Callister's paradigm is just as "valid", and I don't agree.  For something to be valid it must have a sound basis in logic and reasoning.  Callister's position does not meet that requirement equally.  Two opposing points of view are not equally valid.  There might not be a means by which we can prove that one is more correct than another, but we can judge validity, and by that measurement Callister's paradigm falls way short.  

OK so this is the whole post for context, now I will take some passages out of the context and comment on what appear to be the underlying assumptions of those comments.

Quote

While there is no means by which we can objectively prove that Elder Callister's paradigm is incorrect or correct, as you point out.  I do think we can judge the societal merit of Callister's position by its fruits and by its implications about what kind of a God his perspective requires.

OK but that is nothing more than your opinion, which may or may not be a "valid" point of view, according to the system you choose for that justification.

By going in this direction you are using a sociological justification for religious belief.  I do not not see that as "valid".   I think the only justification for a religious position is in the eye of the beholder as it were- I think that is the only way we can justify the use of "testimony" confirmed by religious experience if and only if we admit that religion is purely subjective and what works in our individual lives

A sociological approach is the attempt to use an objective measure to justify religion.  I don't think that works.  It crosses paradigms or "language games" and essentially uses one context to justify statements made in another context.  It is a category error.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Quote

 

Fruits - Strong commitment from the in-group Mormons that agree with his paradigm.  Followers devoted, committed to a fault.  Very little influence outside their in group, followers generally consider themselves superior to outsiders, God's chosen people.  

The God paradigm - God has a select group of favored creations.  God wants to bring others into this group, but is statistically ineffective over the history of the world, God has converted less than 1% of the living people to this exclusive club.  God's corrective mechanism is to convert people in the spirit world, but this makes us question the purpose of this life at all.  God is a God of literal reality, rules are most important, and allegiance to these beliefs.  God leaves out people on the margins if they aren't willing to prescribe to the right rules and rituals.

 

I have never experienced Mormonism in this way, so I cannot agree with this interpretation. I experience a loving Father trying to use faulty humans to teach his children, and by doing so the faulty humans progress according to their abilities. I have not experienced an "in-crowd" kind of feel in Mormonism, but of course I do not live in Utah where the church is highly polarized.  Where I live no one knows what a Mormon is and the congregations are friendly to outsiders and very welcoming.  People acknowledge that we are all sinners trying to improve.  THAT is my personal experience.

Quote

 You say that Callister's paradigm is just as "valid", and I don't agree.  For something to be valid it must have a sound basis in logic and reasoning.

 

That is a paradigm you have not justified and I have no clue where you got it.  I see the statement "My marriage is the best possible marriage for me" as a "valid" statement, and it is not based on logic and reasoning.  No religious belief is based on "logic and reasoning"- they are based on testimony of the person holding the view.  I see the statement "I love my wife" as absolutely true and justified in the same way as the statement "The church is true" is justified and neither is based on logic or math or "reason", though certainly I have "reasons" for my beliefs which I think are justified by a cohesive theory.  In this case I see no such cohesive theory or paradigm.

I am not sure what you mean by "logic".  This is not Mr. Spock talking about what is "logical"- a great fallacy in itself, created by that show, which leads people to think that statements are "logical" if they think they are merely "correct" in their own opinion.  

Propositions  are not justified by "logic"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification- logic is essentially math.  Justification has to do with epistemology, not mathematical logic.  There are many theories of justification, but you have not established what theory you are using or what your views on justification are.  Yes, if there is a contradiction within the theory, THEN logic plays a role showing conflict within the theory by pointing out an inconsistency.

Suppose your sentence said "For something to be valid it must have a sound basis in mathematics and reasoning."  And again "things" are not "valid"- there are no valid chairs there are only justified or "valid" propositions or sentences.   Again- the Rorty quote below.

So we disagree then on whether or not Elder Callister's point of view is "valid" or justified.

As a religious position, I think it is perfectly justified and "valid" as a personal paradigm or testimony within his heart- I do not doubt for one second that he does not believe what he says he believes.  His reason for believing what he believes is just as "valid" as my belief that the "church is true" or yours that "we must use logic and reason" whatever that is supposed to mean.  

On the other hand you believe that your position is based on "reason and logic" without an explanation what those terms mean or a demonstration of how that justifies your statements and Elder Callister does not even need to do that- because he is representing his personal RELIGIOUS position which has NO OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION POSSIBLE.

All he has to say is "I believe this..." and in a religious context he is justified in that.  The question is not about how well his religious belief corresponds to some objective reality outside, even if he believes it does.

Unless he is lying, which clearly he is not, the "I believe..." implied in his religious position is self- justifying in a religious context and is therefore "valid" as much as if he said "I love my wife".

We may argue about whether or not WE find HIS position reasonable or not, but we have no basis for the assumption that his paradigm is not "justified" or "valid" because there is no objective measure for that.

Essentially we can disagree that that position would work for us, but there is not much else to say about it.  Dawkins is an atheist- I see that as his religious position- and i know that is itself a debatable position- which I can debate all day- but in the final analysis all we can say is "I disagree".

Again, the infamous Rorty video- sorry to those who have heard this a million times- you don't have to click on it !  There are newbies hereabouts.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Okay... so what I am getting from you is that you can't or won't defend the Callister/Hinckley dichotomy presented in the OP from a logical perspective.  You support it as a statement of belief or faith.  I get that.  But it fails when analyzed at face value.

How does it fail when analyzed at "face value"?

How do you justify your position? What does "fail" mean here?  That you don't like it? It's old fashioned and not politically correct anymore?   It's authoritarian which automatically means "evil"? 

It's chocolate vs strawberry?  And because you disagree he must be "wrong"?

Chocolate is clearly evil and not politically correct because the cocoa plantations exploit their workers, not to mention it is black.

Clearly strawberry is better because it is not chocolate and it has nice little pieces of fruit in it and so it is clearly more healthy.  Vanilla on the other hand is just so meh.  It does not stand up for itself and is just there, and clearly a flavor should make a statement to be the one true flavor.

On the other hand vanilla begs to take on the "other" flavor of the more perfect union of strawberry syrup with vanilla thereby representing the universal ying and yang, so vanilla is the more correct choice from a Mormon point of view.

 

yes, this is sarcasm.  

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How does it fail when analyzed at "face value"?

How do you justify your position? What does "fail" mean here?  That you don't like it? It's old fashioned and not politically correct anymore?   It's authoritarian which automatically means "evil"? 

It's chocolate vs strawberry?  And because you disagree he must be "wrong"?

Because it Joseph's call as a prophet and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon are the only needed qualities to make the mainstream LDS Church "true" than they would also make the other churches that grew from those events "true".  And if that's the case, than it refutes the very position Callister/Hinckley claim because the other churches contradict our "truth".  There has to be something more than the simplistic dichotomy.

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Because it Joseph's call as a prophet and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon are the only needed qualities to make the mainstream LDS Church "true" than they would also make the other churches that grew from those events "true".  And if that's the case, than it refutes the very position Callister/Hinckley claim because the other churches contradict our "truth".  There has to be something more than the simplistic dichotomy.

But those churches did not grow out of those events -- they separated and morphed from the one church that did grow out of those events.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But those churches did not grow out of those events -- they separated and morphed from the one church that did grow out of those events.

The Community of Christ most certainly did. The COC and the LDS split off in a Y shape from the original branch, each eventually taking the restored gospel very different directions. The COC is not an offshoot of the LDS. Both the LDS and the COC are offshoots of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Gray

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But those churches did not grow out of those events -- they separated and morphed from the one church that did grow out of those events.

We (mainstream LDS) are just one of several churches that claim JS/BoM in our foundational narrative.

 

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We (mainstream LDS) are just one of several churches that claim JS/BoM in our foundational narrative.

 

Which doesn't matter one iota

I guess you didn't read any of my posts.  You are saying there is one truth and yet you affirm no black and white thinking.  Your position is self contradictory and I have explained that several times.  You are using black and white thinking while condemning it.

I give up.

Edited November 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Which doesn't matter one iota

I guess you didn't read any of my posts.

I give up.

Please refer to my last response to you (several posts up).

I've read all of your replies to me.  It seems we are coming at this from different perspectives.

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Please refer to my last response to you (several posts up).

I've read all of your replies to me.  It seems we are coming at this from different perspectives.

Of course there are different perspectives that is the whole point

Your position is the same as Elder Callister in the final analysis but you cannot see it.

 

Quote

Because it Joseph's call as a prophet and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon are the only needed qualities to make the mainstream LDS Church "true" than they would also make the other churches that grew from those events "true".  And if that's the case, than it refutes the very position Callister/Hinckley claim because the other churches contradict our "truth".  There has to be something more than the simplistic dichotomy.

Yes they are all true even if contradictory.   That is the whole point.  The idea of one truth for all is exactly the problem in black and white thinking

What is "more" than the simple dichotomy is that they are all true.  Your dichotomy is just as true or false as his is- it is the same dichotomy that there IS a dichotomy at all

THERE IS no dichotomy when viewed in terms of personal truth which is relative from individual to individual.  But that position itself is just another paradigm

Edited November 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course there are different perspectives that is the whole point

Your position is the same as Elder Callister in the final analysis but you cannot see it.

 

Yes they are all true even if contradictory.   That is the whole point.  The idea of one truth for all is exactly the problem in black and white thinking

What is "more" than the simple dichotomy is that they are all true.  Your dichotomy is just as true or false as his is- it is the same dichotomy that there IS a dichotomy at all

THERE IS no dichotomy when viewed in terms of personal truth which is relative from individual to individual.  But that position itself is just another paradigm

So you believe that what Callister/Hinckley were saying is that all of the different branches of Mormonism are true?  And that there is no one truth?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The Community of Christ most certainly did. The COC and the LDS split off in a Y shape from the original branch, each eventually taking the restored gospel very different directions. The COC is not an offshoot of the LDS. Both the LDS and the COC are offshoots of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. 

The Church established on April 6,1830 is the only one Joseph stayed with. It is not a "Y" because the COC split away based on some other founding principle(s) than the two in the OP.

As an aside: the phrase used in the OP is "God-given," and the God-given gifts and keys through Joseph Smith in his call as a prophet are what make him a prophet and founding figure. The Community of Christ did not carry the keys Joseph Smith shared with the apostles, and which remained with that original Church; in other words they constructed a "different Joseph" than we have (LOL). Do a search of "keys" on the COC website http://www.cofchrist.org/search?q=keys, and see what you come up with! Then do the same with lds.org. Very eye-opening...

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

We (mainstream LDS) are just one of several churches that claim JS/BoM in our foundational narrative.

The other churches needed to add additional claims/rationale to support their narrative and distinguish themselves as "not that church."

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So you believe that what Callister/Hinckley were saying is that all of the different branches of Mormonism are true?  And that there is no one truth?

Oh gosh.

No- I never said that.  I am actually beginning to wonder where you are getting this stuff- you do not seem to understand my posts at all.

Your point was that there must be a way out of the dichotomy proposed.  I gave you a way out of the dictotomy which you do not accept.  THAT was the point of the OP

Now you want me to read minds and tell you what theory of truth these two individuals subscribe to.  You still want a black and white answer.

Elder Callister would not propose the dichotomy if he did not think it was true.

This is pointless- you just keep going in circles.  Their view is the typical sectarian view we derived through protestantism, I am quite sure.  You are stuck on one question about whether or not this is a "false dichotomy" and I have said repeatedly that from a philosophical pov it is not a "false dichotomy"

These are the central questions of the OP:

On 11/3/2016 at 7:38 AM, stemelbow said:

We don't know how much Joseph's own imprint influenced the resulting text, [of the BOM] or if it did at all.  We can only speculate.  If somehow in the process Joseph made a mistake on something, as is his human nature, we wouldn't know.  If any part of the resulting text is not from God, does that do away with Tad R. Callister's either/or suggestion? 

The same goes for the Church.  It is likely, at least, part man-made.  There is no all or nothing about it, in my view.  The Church is many things but it seems clearly at this point, one thing it is not is a perfect rendition managed in every whit by God.  It is human influenced throughout it's work. 

His question was essentially whether there was a way out of the dichotomy of black and white thinking, and to account for the participation of "men" in generating religious truth. I have answered that point to the best of my ability, saying that essentially when it comes to religious truth, there is no objective standard within my paradigm.  I have said repeatedly that according to their paradigm their views of black and white thinking are justified in my opinion.

You seem to want to insist there is an objective standard and then you ask me to read their minds and find out if they really believe that or not.  I am not a mind reader.

I am sorry if you do not understand the concept but I really am done with you on this thread, sorry.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh gosh.

No- I never said that.  I am actually beginning to wonder where you are getting this stuff- you do not seem to understand my posts at all.

Your point was that there must be a way out of the dichotomy proposed.  I gave you a way out of the dictotomy which you do not accept.  THAT was the point of the OP

Now you want me to read minds and tell you what theory of truth these two individuals subscribe to.  You still want a black and white answer.

Elder Callister would not propose the dichotomy if he did not think it was true.

This is pointless- you just keep going in circles.  Their view is the typical sectarian view we derived through protestantism, I am quite sure.  You are stuck on one question about whether or not this is a "false dichotomy" and I have said repeatedly that from a philosophical pov it is not a "false dichotomy"

These are the central questions of the OP:

His question was essentially whether there was a way out of the dichotomy of black and white thinking, and to account for the participation of "men" in generating religious truth. I have answered that point to the best of my ability, saying that essentially when it comes to religious truth, there is no objective standard within my paradigm.  I have said repeatedly that according to their paradigm their views of black and white thinking are justified in my opinion.

You seem to want to insist there is an objective standard and then you ask me to read their minds and find out if they really believe that or not.  I am not a mind reader.

I am sorry if you do not understand the concept but I really am done with you on this thread, sorry.

You have misunderstood me.  I was not looking for a way out of the proposed dichotomy.  Nor am I asking you to read anyone's minds.

I think the proposed dichotomy is false and was trying to explain why.  Perhaps I should have stopped when were either unable or unwilling to answer my original question.

It may be true philosophically -- I am not trained in such things.  But it fails logically.  That was my only point.  You only seem to be interested in discussing it from a philosophical or faith/belief perspective.  I, on the other hand, have only been trying to discuss it from a logical perspective.  I think that is why we keep talking past each other.

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You have misunderstood me.  I was not looking for a way out of the proposed dichotomy.  Nor am I asking you to read anyone's minds.

I think the proposed dichotomy is false and was trying to explain why.  Perhaps I should have stopped when were either unable or unwilling to answer my original question.

It may be true philosophically -- I am not trained in such things.  But it fails logically.  That was my only point.  You only seem to be interested in discussing it from a philosophical or faith/belief perspective.  I, on the other hand, have only been trying to discuss it from a logical perspective.  I think that is why we keep talking past each other.

I suggest you use your browser with the "find on this page" function to search for the word "logic" on this page.

I have commented on it extensively. 

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You have misunderstood me.  I was not looking for a way out of the proposed dichotomy.  Nor am I asking you to read anyone's minds.

I think the proposed dichotomy is false and was trying to explain why.  Perhaps I should have stopped when were either unable or unwilling to answer my original question.

It may be true philosophically -- I am not trained in such things.  But it fails logically.  That was my only point.  You only seem to be interested in discussing it from a philosophical or faith/belief perspective.  I, on the other hand, have only been trying to discuss it from a logical perspective.  I think that is why we keep talking past each other.

Logically, the origins of all the other offshoots involve a third foundational component, the one which defined them as separate from the original that held (and still holds) only the two mentioned in the OP.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Logically, the origins of all the other offshoots involve a third foundational component, the one which defined them as separate from the original that held (and still holds) only the two mentioned in the OP.

Ha.  And you think the other versions of Mormonism consider us "the original"?

#myopic

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I suggest you use your browser with the "find on this page" function to search for the word "logic" on this page.

I have commented on it extensively. 

On this page you responded to Hope's point about logic.  You never answered my question not addressed my point.  That's fine.  I'm done trying to get you to see my point, I'm convinced you don't want to.  

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

On this page you responded to Hope's point about logic.  You never answered my question not addressed my point.  That's fine.  I'm done trying to get you to see my point, I'm convinced you don't want to.  

There is no point to see.  I answered that in those posts to Hope

Do I have to repeat every post for every poster?  Logic is a sub-discipline of philosophy.  It is essentially mathematics.  I do not understand your use of "logical" because you do not understand what it is.  You sound like Mr Spock calling every odd opinion "logical" as if it trumps anyone who disagrees.

I am sorry you cannot articulate your point.  If anyone else understands it, I invite them to step in and translate for me.