Teancum Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Just for fun (not so much for deep theological debate) because of 2 or 3 threads on the board right now (eternal nature, attracting disaffected, etc) What if ALL recorded official/semi-official teachings and doctrines of Mormonism turn out to be absolutely true? We spend a lot of time on this board debated how maybe the Book of Mormon is false, or polygamy was a mistake, or doctrine X or Y or Z is false because of reasons. We break every teaching and practice of the Church down the smallest minutia. We worry about whether the gospel is "true for me" and how it makes me feel. And then we discuss what believers, doubters, questioners, former believers, etc should do/have done. But just for kicks, what if you get to the other side and find out everything taught over the pulpit by the prophets and apostles was true. What if they were absolutely right on the realities of eternity? Is truth more important than feelings? Personally I will be in shock and awe though as you know there was a time I would not have been. For me the likelihood and probability of your proposition is about as likely as Zeus being the chief god on Mount Olympus. But if your proposition is true I will beg for mercy telling God and Christ I have held out a hope for that used to believe could be true and I have been doing the best I could given the make up of who and what I am. At best I might get the terrestrial kingdom given where I am at now. 1
Teancum Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Of course it's true. The problem is that we can only know that through feelings God told me so. But you keep telling us that truth is abstract and cannot be pinned down to one definition. God tells you the BoM it true but tells the Southern Baptist it is not. Whose truth trumps?
Teancum Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Totally willing to agree that there have been conflicting teachings among the contents I propose. (The Paul H. Dunn situation is not exactly what I was referring to). In addition to my original post addressing the doubting of certain teachings I also think it's important to recognize that at different periods in Church history members have been taught and accepted different doctrines. As a result I think it's too big of an assumption that many of the things they believed were wrong but we are much less wrong. So you bring up Adam God, and without going into doctrine on the issue To my original point, what if the 19th century believers in that doctrine are actually correct? Or to the counter point what if we are correct today - what did that mean for the 19th century saints when they passed on and discovered they were wrong? If Brigham was right about AG the current LDS prophets are teaching us about a false God. If BY was wrong he was teaching about a false God. This does not give us confidence in the LDS Prophets knowing who God is and what His characteristics are. 2
JLHPROF Posted December 18, 2016 Author Posted December 18, 2016 30 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Then everything we know about our world, the laws of science and nature, observations seen and discovered on both earth and in heaven are all false...and God is a liar How does the part in red automatically lead to the part in blue? The flaws with what we think we know have nothing to do with what God has said.
JLHPROF Posted December 18, 2016 Author Posted December 18, 2016 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: If Brigham was right about AG the current LDS prophets are teaching us about a false God. If BY was wrong he was teaching about a false God. This does not give us confidence in the LDS Prophets knowing who God is and what His characteristics are. Right. We've had this discussion repeatedly. The topic of this thread is specific. We spend much time speaking about how we should react if some aspect of the gospel is proven false. I want to discuss how we might react if the entire gospel is eventually proven true.
JLHPROF Posted December 18, 2016 Author Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Teancum said: Personally I will be in shock and awe though as you know there was a time I would not have been. For me the likelihood and probability of your proposition is about as likely as Zeus being the chief god on Mount Olympus. But if your proposition is true I will beg for mercy telling God and Christ I have held out a hope for that used to believe could be true and I have been doing the best I could given the make up of who and what I am. At best I might get the terrestrial kingdom given where I am at now. Thank you for the very honest answer. I am genuinely curious how people think they will respond. Not how the doubter even will respond. But specifically how someone who believes Joseph Smith was a fraud would respond to find out he was everything we claim ( and more). I am curious how the person who believes polygamy is nothing but evil would respond to find out it came from God. I am curious how the scientist would respond if they found out there was a global flood. I am curious how the anthropologists would respond if they found out the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham actually are historical records. I am curious how the SSM advocates would respond if they found out that SSM is a great sin and not a part of eternity. I am curious how the astronomers and physicists would respond if they found out God did live on the planet Kolob and the earth did fall from that location. I am curious how the traditional Christian believer would respond if they found out that the King Follett doctrine is true. What if it's all true? And by it, I mean the teachings of the gospel. We spend a lot of time on this board asking the "what ifs" different teachings are false, what are members to do. I want to know the what ifs the teachings are all true. Edited December 18, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
Rain Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Read it twice. Very interesting book. For the sake of this thread I am not addressing the contradicting doctrines. I am more interested in how people think they might respond upon finding out doctrines taught that they don't believe are actually true. I knew someone in another message board who exclaimed that if she found out the doctrines were true then she wouldn't want to be with Good in the next luff because she didn't like what the doctrines were. I hope to be able to accept all truth in the next life.
Jeanne Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 7 hours ago, emeliza said: We would be even more confused because there are a ton of contradictions in things said over the pulpit. Heck, there are a lot of contradictions in the scriptures. We would be better off to stick with the gospel principles and say it is all you need to know vs trying to accept each thing said ever. But why would anyone want to stick to one set of principles with the idea that it is all you need to know? You would be limiting yourself.
Teancum Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 1 hour ago, strappinglad said: we are told that the 'god of this world ' is a liar ... the very best in fact. Theories like relativity and quantum mechanics seem to put a ' lie ' to other theories held for centuries. The god of science appears to have been ' lying ' all along. Pick your poison. This demonstrates incredible ignorance on the scientific method and how scientists approach their work.
mfbukowski Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Teancum said: But you keep telling us that truth is abstract and cannot be pinned down to one definition. God tells you the BoM it true but tells the Southern Baptist it is not. Whose truth trumps? Truth is abstract and cannot be pinned down to one definition. In matters of religion there is no objective basis for comparison so nobody's truth trumps. That's kind of like asking what's the one true way to get to Milwaukee. It all depends on where you start from. And some people might actually want to go to Peoria instead. If you are both in the same place and want to get to the same OTHER place together there IS one best way to get there- ask google maps. For me the church is the google maps to where I want to go. If you don't know where you are going, any direction will do. Edited December 18, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
Teancum Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Thank you for the very honest answer. I am genuinely curious how people think they will respond. Not how the doubter even will respond. But specifically how someone who believes Joseph Smith was a fraud would respond to find out he was everything we claim ( and more). I am curious how the person who believes polygamy is nothing but evil would respond to find out it came from God. I am curious how the scientist would respond if they found out there was a global flood. I am curious how the anthropologists would respond if they found out the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham actually are historical records. I am curious how the SSM advocates would respond if they found out that SSM is a great sin and not a part of eternity. I am curious how the astronomers and physicists would respond if they found out God did live on the planet Kolob and the earth did fall from that location. I am curious how the traditional Christian believer would respond if they found out that the King Follett doctrine is true. What if it's all true? And by it, I mean the teachings of the gospel. We spend a lot of time on this board asking the "what ifs" different teachings are false, what are members to do. I want to know the what ifs the teachings are all true. I hope I answered it personally as to HOW I would react. Of course you understand I am still LDS through and through in many ways. The Church is my tribe. Who I am was shaped by my dedication to the LDS church for most of my life. At least for me it has not been something I have easily tossed aside even though here I can be ornery about it at times. 1
Teancum Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: Truth is abstract and cannot be pinned down to one definition. In matters of religion there is no objective basis for comparison so nobody's truth trumps. That's kind of like asking what's the one true way to get to Milwaukee. It all depends on where you start from. And some people might actually want to go to Peoria instead. Ok I am good with that. If I recall you have encouraged my to follow my own truth path wherever it leads. Last night I had dinner with one of my very best friends. He has been a friend for 37 years. I actually taught him as a missionary and baptized him, He is still active LDS but his life has had twist and turns like we all do that he never expected. He is an engineer and scientist and one of the smartest people I know. He is one of the few I talk to about my doubts and questions about the Church and even the agnostic leanings I have not. He said "Finding things about God can't and won't come through intellect." In many ways I understand and even lean this way. In others it repels me. Does that make sense?
Bernard Gui Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 15 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Just for fun (not so much for deep theological debate) because of 2 or 3 threads on the board right now (eternal nature, attracting disaffected, etc) What if ALL recorded official/semi-official teachings and doctrines of Mormonism turn out to be absolutely true? We spend a lot of time on this board debated how maybe the Book of Mormon is false, or polygamy was a mistake, or doctrine X or Y or Z is false because of reasons. We break every teaching and practice of the Church down the smallest minutia. We worry about whether the gospel is "true for me" and how it makes me feel. And then we discuss what believers, doubters, questioners, former believers, etc should do/have done. But just for kicks, what if you get to the other side and find out everything taught over the pulpit by the prophets and apostles was true. What if they were absolutely right on the realities of eternity? Is truth more important than feelings? Many things are withdrawn or kept hidden because of our weakness or unwillingness to hear them, or because of circumstances that are beyond our control. 2
mfbukowski Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Teancum said: Ok I am good with that. If I recall you have encouraged my to follow my own truth path wherever it leads. Last night I had dinner with one of my very best friends. He has been a friend for 37 years. I actually taught him as a missionary and baptized him, He is still active LDS but his life has had twist and turns like we all do that he never expected. He is an engineer and scientist and one of the smartest people I know. He is one of the few I talk to about my doubts and questions about the Church and even the agnostic leanings I have not. He said "Finding things about God can't and won't come through intellect." In many ways I understand and even lean this way. In others it repels me. Does that make sense? It totally does. Religion is not about rationality- it is like picking a husband/wife. This is not science. It is explicitly NOT about data and the "facts" but interpretations of what feels right to you. You must follow the spirit inside you. But this IS a rational and well defined philosophy in itself- as a philosophy it is called "Fideism" This is the simpler explanation from wiipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism And the more academic and accurate one from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/ So all I have been saying forever here starts with this idea, and then deals with figuring out what the "best path" is for the individual- and that is where Pragmatism comes it- over simplified it is "what works best" for the individual. With that is the idea that truth cannot be defined, and yet we know how to use the word. It is an affirmative word that often means no more than "we agree". So when I say "I know the church is true" - and I do say that freely- it means " I affirm that I have tried the principles found in Mormonism and have found it to be the best path to becoming the person I want to be" If you want to get formal about it, this view of truth is called the "deflationary theory of truth"- deflationary because it "deflates" the importance of statements of truth and "truth claims" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ Quote According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’. There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there. There isn't much you can say about truth- it cannot be defined really. For thousands of years no one has been able to do it in a meaningful way So truth is undefinable even in science, because science follows paradigms. What was considered "truth" pre-Copernicus is not considered "truth" any more. Yes we know more about what observations are correlated with other observations and have theories and paradigms interpreting the data, but even science is not about "truth". It is about finding explanations or interpretations of the ever changing data, that interprets the data in ever improving ways, but which will never end in getting to "truth" because there IS no end to it all. It just gets better, but will never get to "truth" because it is a moving target which depends on what questions we are asking and how we ask them So if you are crazy enough to want to figure out what the h. I am talking about around here, actually read the above articles and I think we would have a good base for discussion. It only seems like I am making this up off the top of my head. Edited December 18, 2016 by mfbukowski
Tacenda Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Right. We've had this discussion repeatedly. The topic of this thread is specific. We spend much time speaking about how we should react if some aspect of the gospel is proven false. I want to discuss how we might react if the entire gospel is eventually proven true. I will be sad if all of it is true. I keep thinking God really had nothing to do with JS's polygamy, I would be sad that he commanded it the way he did. 2
bcuzbcuz Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Thank you for the very honest answer. I am genuinely curious how people think they will respond. Not how the doubter even will respond. But specifically how someone who believes Joseph Smith was a fraud would respond to find out he was everything we claim ( and more). I am curious how the person who believes polygamy is nothing but evil would respond to find out it came from God. I am curious how the scientist would respond if they found out there was a global flood. I am curious how the anthropologists would respond if they found out the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham actually are historical records. I am curious how the SSM advocates would respond if they found out that SSM is a great sin and not a part of eternity. I am curious how the astronomers and physicists would respond if they found out God did live on the planet Kolob and the earth did fall from that location. I am curious how the traditional Christian believer would respond if they found out that the King Follett doctrine is true. What if it's all true? And by it, I mean the teachings of the gospel. We spend a lot of time on this board asking the "what ifs" different teachings are false, what are members to do. I want to know the what ifs the teachings are all true. I've followed the various answers and especially your comments. It seems you are under the misconception that the guilty, when confronted with the inevitable truth of the situation, will somehow, in fits of remorse, suddenly feel the ground open under them and cry for mercy. A guilty person will do everything to conceal their acts but when confronted with the facts will not collapse into a quivering, remorseful shambles. The responses will be all from "I didn't do anything" to "Prove it". I witnessed a father who had sexually abused his daughter, when confronted by his daughter, responded with, "How dare you, you ungrateful so-and-so!" His counter attack was ferocious, aggressive, loud and unrelenting. Any confession or admission of wrongful act was taken to his grave. You're curious how people will respond to finding out that: * the flood happened * polygamy was justified * The BofM was historical, etc., etc.? I doubt you or anyone else will get any happiness from the "plight of the guilty" or the "remorse from the unbeliever" or the "fear and dread of unfaithful as they gaze into the abyss of eternal damnation" At most, the eternally lost, they (I) will respond with a shrug of their (my) shoulders.
Atheist Mormon Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 4 hours ago, sam said: Last time I check it was authored by men inspired by God. Is that so? Then...How come we have 4 different, conflicting Gospel narratives, five different Genesis accounts (which resulted many 10 Commandments) ?
Glenn101 Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Then everything we know about our world, the laws of science and nature, observations seen and discovered on both earth and in heaven are all false...and God is a liar There is everything we think we know, everything we do know, but we do not know the difference, compared to what we do not know,which is almost infinite in comparison. No lies, just our understanding and knowledge are lacking. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 53 minutes ago, Teancum said: In others it repels me. Does that make sense? That being repelled by the irrationality of Religion is a left-over from the outmoded correspondence theory and the Protestant basis for false Mormonism. And yes "false" because the correspondence theory has been shown to be incoherent. It started back with trying to give a scientific explanation for spiritual matters- debating if two spirits could occupy the same space ("how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?") or how scientifically Christ's body could be in a piece of bread. It was also found in the idea that because the Bible says that Joshua made the sun stand still, then it was not possible that the earth revolves around the sun, so Copernicus must be wrong. Obvious nonsense when you realize that religion is not about science and science is not about religion And we still have idiots like Dawkins saying that God cannot exist because we cannot see him- or that there is no hard "evidence" for God. I suspect that this kind of belief still lingers in you and that is what repels you when someone says "God is about following the spirit" when the spirit is not consistent. Religion is not about objective consistency in observation between people. We had an effective if kind of silly demonstration of that in priesthood today- we were talking about faith and the instructor talked about people looking to "find God". He walked around the room for a few seconds, looking under tables to "find God" The point was that God is not observable and belief in God is based in faith. So do not feel repelled ever by that feeling- it is a mistaken way of understanding religion. It is like looking for data about whether or not to marry your significant other- falling in love is not about scientific data- it is about emotions and what works for you individually You have been taught otherwise but that was wrong. Just look at the absurdity it leads to- that we should throw out the bible - or keep the bible- based on whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. The message of the bible has nothing to do with science. How can you prove the atonement scientifically? The notion is absurd. The purpose of the atonement is to relieve us of guilt for all the wrong things we do. God forgives us and we can go on with life as long as we do our best to repent. You make a mistake you try to correct it, and you feel better because you really tried to fix it the best you could. Common sense that has nothing to do with the earth going around the sun or the sun going around the earth! Nothing to do with getting "evidence" for the existence of an invisible sky spirit- just common sense about what feels right The idea that we can be the best we can become and live up to the idea of being just like your ideal "Dad" image is a lot different than looking for evidence of an invisible sky spirit. If you can truly get that last sentence you will have gotten my point. I want to be like God BECAUSE I see him as the IDEAL Father. He is a paradigm, an archetype and my ideal in life. He is the image of all I would like to achieve and be here and after I pass. I believe in the after life because I HOPE it will really happen that way. Faith is the HOPE for things unseen. And mostly I feel it in my heart. I close my eyes and talk to the "person" out there, and I feel comfort and love that in my mind is not coming from me, but from outside. Can I get "evidence" for that that I can show you? Can I plug in my god-meter and show you the data of what I feel? Nope it's all in my mind and could not be anywhere else, in principle. My love for my wife is also all in my head and is the greatest truth in my life- but can I prove to you that it is true? Not possible. So don't let these ideas repel you- understand what they are and what they are not. Keep your faith in science but realize it does not apply to religion or whom you love or any of the deepest feelings of your heart. Science does not tell you what is IMPORTANT in life like having a peaceful life, being a good person and loving and serving others. THAT is not the realm of science but of religion. Keep those "truths" in their separate spheres and don't confuse them and you will have a peaceful life. Confuse them and I promise your life will never be as fulfilled as it could be. Keep that wall in your mind- science out there, religion in here, and you will be rewarded beyond your dreams. 4
Glenn101 Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 34 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: I doubt you or anyone else will get any happiness from the "plight of the guilty" or the "remorse from the unbeliever" or the "fear and dread of unfaithful as they gaze into the abyss of eternal damnation" At most, the eternally lost, they (I) will respond with a shrug of their (my) shoulders. I believe that the situation will be quite a bit different when a person stands at the judgment bar. We are told that we shall "have a bright recollection of all our guilt." (Alma 11:43) 1
Jeanne Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 So...what if isn't true? None of it. That there is no restoration or priesthood or work for the dead. What kind of response would those faithful here have if it is a 19th century man made religion after all?
CMZ Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 10 hours ago, Buckeye said: I'd have to totally revisit my understanding of truth. For instance, I currently have no way to reconcile all of Paul H Dunn's baseball and war stories with his later admission that many of those stories were false. I also have no way of reconciling teachings from one leader that directly conflict with those of another; for example, Brigham's Adam-God verses the proclamation on Christ differ on Christ's OT role. Another example is the now-repudiated justifications for the racial priesthood ban I could keep going on about the contradictions but it'd be overkill. To answer the main gist of your question, though, if overall the main historical concepts taught repeatedly turn out to be factually true, then I'll have a mixed feeling of joy and horror, but mostly joy. The truthfulness of the gospel was never dependent on Paul H. Dunn. He was one person who got carried away with telling stories to get an emotional rise out of an audience. Eventually it came to an end.
CMZ Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 36 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Is that so? Then...How come we have 4 different, conflicting Gospel narratives, five different Genesis accounts (which resulted many 10 Commandments) ? Four different people relating actual events in their own way. Happens all the time. Even in our "enlightened" times. Something actually occurs: it gets related by different people in different ways, but it doesn't mean the events didn't occur.
Bobbieaware Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 18 hours ago, Tacenda said: Then we have a God that likes to play tricks. I wouldn't call it playing tricks. I would call it giving us highly challenging tests of our faith and faithfulness.
Bobbieaware Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 49 minutes ago, Jeanne said: So...what if isn't true? None of it. That there is no restoration or priesthood or work for the dead. What kind of response would those faithful here have if it is a 19th century man made religion after all? I would say, why did men come up with a more just, merciful, fair, compassionate, wise and truly loving plan of salvation than you did? 2
Recommended Posts