mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I've argued this before on this board. If we look beyond the words used to describe it (like "revelation") and just focus on the practical acts, it seems like the Pope and the President of the LDS church do the same thing. Of course but there is no such thing as "looking beyond the words" on this board. These guys tend to be fundamentalists, one step removed from sola scriptura if they admit it or not. They were raised that way even if it is demonstrably not doctrine. Good to see you! And yes I agree with you about the Pope. And for all practical purposes when you factor in sensus fidelium, I honestly think that there is virtually NO difference between us here. Look at limbo vs blacks and the priesthood and I think it becomes clear. Neither of these were ever "doctrine" yet somehow they went on for years without being such until popular opinion finally caught up to the institution and the positions clarified. And I would guess that married priests might eventually be next on your side and some kind of leadership for women on our side. You have precedents for married priests though- that could be a big difference. I really enjoyed hearing the Latin mass as televised for midnight mass on Christmas. Love the sanctus as usual but that dang old credo always gets me. Quote Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero, Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri: Per quem ómnia facta sunt. Grrrr. That first line works but fergitabout the rest. But maybe there is a glimmer of hope http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/columns/postmodern-catholicism Edited January 21, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 5 hours ago, rockpond said: And there is NO REASON to believe Joseph would agree with you. Re-read the quote. You are wrong. What I said was just what Joseph said.
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I've argued this before on this board. If we look beyond the words used to describe it (like "revelation") and just focus on the practical acts, it seems like the Pope and the President of the LDS church do the same thing. Did I tell you the story of a local pastor allowing me to do a scriptural reading and a mini-sermon (very ecumenical and vague) at my mother's Catholic funeral mass a few years ago? He said "Well Mormons believe in Jesus, right? It's all really the same anyhow". I nearly fell out of my chair! I told that once to Rory and I think he DID fall out of his chair! 3
Meadowchik Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Did I tell you the story of a local pastor allowing me to do a scriptural reading and a mini-sermon (very ecumenical and vague) at my mother's Catholic funeral mass a few years ago? He said "Well Mormons believe in Jesus, right? It's all really the same anyhow". I nearly fell out of my chair! I told that once to Rory and I think he DID fall out of his chair! I just attended a Catholic funeral mass a week ago. I do think that for many a person, at least for a long time, basic beliefs may seem "really the same." There are Catholics who believe God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate. There are non-Mormons who believe families will be reunited. The mass I attended was for a good man whose greatest life's desire was that his family be united. He said this surrounded by his adult grandchildren before he died. The mass comments aluded more than once to him rejoining his wife who had preceeded him in death. My husband believed more than one "uniquely Mormon" thing as a Catholic, before he knew anything about LDS doctrine. Interesting, eh? 2
rockpond Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Re-read the quote. You are wrong. What I said was just what Joseph said. You think Joseph would agree with you that many Mormons' understanding of the revelatory pattern is based in Protestant literalism rather than in the pattern that Joseph himself demonstrated over and over again? Your quote doesn't address that.
Gray Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) On 1/20/2017 at 5:10 PM, mfbukowski said: The problem here is a naive and literalistic view of how God spoke to Moses and the other prophets. That comes from straight Protestant literalism - apostate thought which infected the Restoration early on just as Neoplatonism infected the dispensation of the meridian of times. Like it or not, Joseph Smith was also steeped in protestant literalism, a kind of anti-intellectual reaction to the twin threats of the enlightenment and the new (at the time) development of academic Biblical studies: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/08/the-prophet-joseph-smiths-use-of-the-old-testament?lang=eng Quote The Prophet Joseph Smith believed in a rigorous adherence to the literal meaning of the biblical text. “What is the rule of interpretation?” he asked. “Just no interpretation at all.” It should be “understood precisely as it reads.” That's textbook fundamentalism. (edit: or perhaps I should say, for clarity, scriptural literalism) Did Joseph Smith branch out from that? Yes, but not by engaging with the symbolic meaning of the scriptures, but by getting new revelations that he could also interpret literally to better fit with his theological vision. Or sometimes, in the case of his doctrines on eternal punishment, by finding technical loopholes in the language. Joseph Smith's public statements about his revelations, at least, also display that same literalistic view of how divine communication works. I would say that there is some evidence that his private experiences were not so cut and dried, however. Edited January 22, 2017 by Gray 2
Gray Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, pogi said: All that is good, and light, and true can only be experienced through revelation. That is all we have ever taught. Nothing has changed in that regard. Bednar does not waver from that teaching. We may have to agree to disagree on that point. I'm fine with calling that revelation. I certainly don't believe that God literally speaks words to us. Any positive moral insights we have may be properly called revelation. Quote I disagree that "most people cannot access dramatic visionary experience, or regularly experience strong religious elevation experiences." I agree that the church could do more to nurture these types of experiences, but that does not mean they are not possible, and it does not mean that the teachings are not there. I have a large collection of such teachings from church leaders over time. I have several volumes of prayer journals that I have filled from cover to cover with "dramatic visionary" and "religious elevation" experiences. It is my personal canon and revelation, specific for me and my needs. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Books of Ryan (Pogi). I have no doubt whatsoever that the membership in general can have profound experiences on a regular basis if they would dedicate 20 minutes, twice a day, to devote their full attention to God, as I do daily. I don't think that I am particularly special or more spiritually gifted/capable than anyone else, I just think that I devote more time to listening rather than talking in my prayers...to be still and know that he is God. I agree that there is not enough emphasis on this type of experience. I can only speak to my experience in church leadership meetings, and also my observations from those leaked videos. I think the way we conduct meetings sucks the spiritual life out of the room. Personally I can access "religious elevation" experiences pretty easily in other contexts. As far as visionary experiences go, only a certain percentage of the population can get things like that with any regularity. I'm not one of them - I'd probably have to suffer a traumatic brain event. Edited January 21, 2017 by Gray
cdowis Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: I'm fine with calling that revelation. I certainly don't believe that God literally speaks words to us. Any positive moral insights we have may be properly called revelation. I think most of us agree that revelation comes in many forms. But even if it is not spoken words (Thus saith God), it is still revelation. I can only speak to my experience in church leadership meetings, and also my observations from those leaked videos. I think the way we conduct meetings sucks the spiritual life out of the room. Personally I can access "religious elevation" experiences pretty easily in other contexts. One example is the Conference in Jerusalem in Acts 15 regarding the preaching to the Gentiles. There was no outpouring of the Spirit, no tongues of fire, just questions, answers, and finally coming to a consensus. As far as visionary experiences go, only a certain percentage of the population can get things like that with any regularity. I'm not one of them - I'd probably have to suffer a traumatic brain event. It is a gift, but there is a great responsibility attached to this gift. Joan of Arc clearly had this gift. Edited January 21, 2017 by cdowis 1
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, rockpond said: You think Joseph would agree with you that many Mormons' understanding of the revelatory pattern is based in Protestant literalism rather than in the pattern that Joseph himself demonstrated over and over again? Your quote doesn't address that. Lol Yes since he said he did not want his church to be like Methodism, that is precisely what I think Go back and read it a third time. It even say that he wants people to believe whatever they like. Edited January 21, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: Like it or not, Joseph Smith was also steeped in protestant literalism, a kind of anti-intellectual reaction to the twin threats of the enlightenment and the new (at the time) development of academic Biblical studies: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/08/the-prophet-joseph-smiths-use-of-the-old-testament?lang=eng That's textbook fundamentalism. Did Joseph Smith branch out from that? Yes, but not by engaging with the symbolic meaning of the scriptures, but by getting new revelations that he could also interpret literally to better fit with his theological vision. Or sometimes, in the case of his doctrines on eternal punishment, by finding technical loopholes in the language. Joseph Smith's public statements about his revelations, at least, also display that same literalistic view of how divine communication works. I would say that there is some evidence that his private experiences were not so cut and dried, however. Yeah right. Re-writing scripture at will is not exactly fundamentalism. He took it literally if he liked it, if not he just re-wrote it.
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 8 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I just attended a Catholic funeral mass a week ago. I do think that for many a person, at least for a long time, basic beliefs may seem "really the same." There are Catholics who believe God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate. There are non-Mormons who believe families will be reunited. The mass I attended was for a good man whose greatest life's desire was that his family be united. He said this surrounded by his adult grandchildren before he died. The mass comments aluded more than once to him rejoining his wife who had preceeded him in death. My husband believed more than one "uniquely Mormon" thing as a Catholic, before he knew anything about LDS doctrine. Interesting, eh? Yep. I have always felt that my spirit existed before I came here and that my family would be together forever. I think most Catholics believe that. But I think they would think that sex in the afterlife would be a very corrupt belief.
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gray said: I'm fine with calling that revelation. I certainly don't believe that God literally speaks words to us. Any positive moral insights we have may be properly called revelation. I can only speak to my experience in church leadership meetings, and also my observations from those leaked videos. I think the way we conduct meetings sucks the spiritual life out of the room. Personally I can access "religious elevation" experiences pretty easily in other contexts. As far as visionary experiences go, only a certain percentage of the population can get things like that with any regularity. I'm not one of them - I'd probably have to suffer a traumatic brain event. Nah, just try meditation. Plugging into the spirit can be a learned brain state, like biofeedback for Alpha waves. It is an attitude https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201504/alpha-brain-waves-boost-creativity-and-reduce-depression Edited January 21, 2017 by mfbukowski 3
RevTestament Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) On 1/19/2017 at 8:30 AM, Gray said: But there is evidence - textual evidence. If the only kind of evidence we could accept is the age of the physical documents, we'd have to date everything very, very late. Let's say we recovered a document claiming to be written by a President Denton, writing from 1804. There are no other corroborating documents that mention a US President with the last name Denton in the early 19th century. Moreover, this Denton seems very fuzzy on recent American history (late 18th century, early 19th century), and makes crystal clear predictions of what's going to happen in the mid-20th century, right up until the presidency of John F. Kenney, who he predicts will be a two-termer. That would be good textual evidence that, despite the claims of the text's author, the document was in fact written sometime between 1961 and 1963, when Kennedy was president but before he was assassinated. Again the problem with this "historical method" is that it is based solely on textual interpretation. What if the facts as interpreted seemed to lead right up to the date of Jesus' resurrection? Then according to your vaunted "historical method":scholars would date the book 300-400 years later correct? That is very subjective IMHO, and it entirely discounts the book as prophecy. To use this method and at the same time claim the prophecies of Daniel failed seems inconsistent to me. Again it is entirely based on the traditional interpretation being correct. Quote All evidence is based on interpretation. Yes, all history is somewhat subjective isn't it? To argue this gets us nowhere. Again you are simply asserting that your interpretation is better than mine because it is the traditional and scholarly interpretation. But I believe I have shown it is inconsistent with the text itself. From a textual standpoint to argue that the authors intended for Antiochus Epiphanes to be the king of the north and the vile one presents a severe problem for the textual historical method you keep arguing for. Even if that authorship dating is correct, why would those authors write that verse that way? It is internally inconsistent, leading to the conclusion that the traditional interpretation is based on a faulty analysis of the history, which simply tries to cram the known history into the text even tho it doesn't really fit. Quote This is your interpretation, but it's not historical, because it doesn't follow the historical method. Does that make sense? I believe I have shown the "historical method" you keep alluding to has at least two large inconsistencies with the text itself. My interpretation is completely consistent with the text and with history down to the present day. My interpretation simply leads to the conclusion that the "historical method" is inaccurate, and that God can prophesy. Is that the problem you have with it? That God can prophesy? You said God's prophecies failed. I have shown that is true only if one can only accept the traditional interpretation. But if those are wrong, and not consistent with the text, perhaps you should reconsider your acceptance of them! To stubbornly cling to your belief that the prophecies failed, while essentially believing the book wasn't even written as prophecy seems inconsistent to me. You can jump that ship and believe different interpretations. As you say "all evidence is based upon interpretation." Edited January 21, 2017 by RevTestament
Robert F. Smith Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 20 hours ago, pogi said: All that is good, and light, and true can only be experienced through revelation. That is all we have ever taught. Nothing has changed in that regard. Bednar does not waver from that teaching. We may have to agree to disagree on that point. I disagree that "most people cannot access dramatic visionary experience, or regularly experience strong religious elevation experiences." I agree that the church could do more to nurture these types of experiences, but that does not mean they are not possible, and it does not mean that the teachings are not there. I have a large collection of such teachings from church leaders over time. I have several volumes of prayer journals that I have filled from cover to cover with "dramatic visionary" and "religious elevation" experiences. It is my personal canon and revelation, specific for me and my needs. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Books of Ryan (Pogi). I have no doubt whatsoever that the membership in general can have profound experiences on a regular basis if they would dedicate 20 minutes, twice a day, to devote their full attention to God, as I do daily. I don't think that I am particularly special or more spiritually gifted/capable than anyone else, I just think that I devote more time to listening rather than talking in my prayers...to be still and know that he is God. I agree that there is not enough emphasis on this type of experience. Excellent and perceptive observations, Ryan, and in line with the advice given by the late Apostle Richard G. Scott at the Oct 2009 LDS General Conference, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng . Numbers 11 (people can have personal revelations): 27 And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. 28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. 29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Nah, just try meditation. Plugging into the spirit can be a learned brain state, like biofeedback for Alpha waves. It is an attitude https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201504/alpha-brain-waves-boost-creativity-and-reduce-depression One of my former teachers is a Jewish rabbi who learned Transcendental Meditation (TM) around 40 years ago and still practices it twice daily, 20 min in the morning and 20 min in the evening. He found that it vastly reduced the negative effects of his very demanding life as a college professor and rabbi who spoke and wrote a great deal. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 3 hours ago, cdowis said: Quote Gray said: I can only speak to my experience in church leadership meetings, and also my observations from those leaked videos. I think the way we conduct meetings sucks the spiritual life out of the room. Personally I can access "religious elevation" experiences pretty easily in other contexts. One example is the Conference in Jerusalem in Acts 15 regarding the preaching to the Gentiles. There was no outpouring of the Spirit, no tongues of fire, just questions, answers, and finally coming to a consensus. We probably need to go a bit further with this question and get to the nub of God's basic rule that no revelation is necessary whenever man has the wherewithal on his own. This applies to translation, to planning and strategy meetings, and the like. In the economy of God, there is no value in providing aid when it is not needed. We already have the right of free choice and need to make decisions based on the good principles we have been taught. At some point the training wheels need to come off, and we need to fend for ourselves. That's what Earthlife is all about. 3
MiserereNobis Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 13 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I really enjoyed hearing the Latin mass as televised for midnight mass on Christmas. Love the sanctus as usual but that dang old credo always gets me. Grrrr. That first line works but fergitabout the rest. But it's in Latin so it's all good, man 2
Calm Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah right. Re-writing scripture at will is not exactly fundamentalism. He took it literally if he liked it, if not he just re-wrote it. I don't think Grey is calling Joseph a fundamentalist (he can correct if I am wrong, of course...edit...got to the post where he did, my error, I disagree with him strongly), but there is a lot of literalism in the way Joseph expressed things. For example, his teaching that those who died as children, even infants, would remain in that state eternally...which contradicts his teaching that parents would be able to raise their children (though perhaps by raising, he meant care for). My opinion is he often saw visual images in his revelations and he had to frame it in his learned religious language, not always making the correct assumptions about what he saw. Add-on: I see Joseph as being very liberal in receiving new scripture as well as rewriting and at times he could be very literalist. Others, he really got how symbols open the mind and used them effectively. Edited January 21, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Really weird, I read the first part of Gray's post and then either rewrote the rest in my head or somehow in scrolling down, I popped to another post entirely. I need to go eat breakfast. The brain is a funny thing. Edited January 21, 2017 by Calm 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 On 1/20/2017 at 9:42 AM, california boy said: I have read both points of view on revelation and what actually qualifies as a revelation from God. I think a lot of the disagreement comes from a viewpoint that was once taught in the church but now seems to be tossed aside like so many other doctrines that were once believed to be true. I grew up believing that the prophet of God was actually God's mouthpiece on earth. That God would tell him what to say and the prophet would declare those words of God. I remember being on my mission and telling people that just as God spoke to prophets in the past, so does He speak to a prophet today. Just as God spoke to Moses, Abraham and others, we now have a prophet that is the mouthpiece of God today. That was the message. That was the promise. That was what people were taught to believe And that was what they were asked to pray about. ................................................................................ I disagree somewhat on just what Mormon missionaries said and what their contacts were asked to pray about. It is true that a key argument by the missionaries was always that a modern prophet could settle typical denominational religious controversies by revelation from God. But that has always been in the context of teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how that is buttressed by the Book of Mormon, and that is what investigators were asked to pray about. Is the Book of Mormon true? Is the Mormon version of the Gospel true? The old missionary tract "Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story" was merely an aid in getting to those objectives. My question would be, what does it mean to say that "a prophet of God was actually God's mouthpiece"? Yes, most Mormons are taught that notion, but what does it mean? And does it apply as much to modern prophets as to ancient ones? I say that it applies to both in equal measure and for the same reasons. Naturally, one must understand ancient prophecy to make head or tail of such a comparison, and a great deal has been written about ancient prophecy. One can consult those books and articles which have been written, but there are online courses on the Old Testament offered by BYU. Religion A301 and 302, and you can find similar courses online at other schools. Indeed, a symposium will be held at Yale University, April 20–21, 2017, West Campus, on “Between Heaven and Earth: Divination, Prophecy and Oracles in the Ancient World,” which you could attend. The blurb accompanying their announcement says: Quote Many studies have been conducted on the manner in which cultures across the globe have attempted (and continue to attempt) communication with higher powers. The study of divination, prophecy and oracles, however, has suffered from their being considered in isolation. This conference invites graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty to an interdisciplinary exploration of prophecy, magic, and oracular and divinatory practices in the ancient Mediterranean and Near East. Bringing Egyptologists into conversation with scholars in Classics, ancient Judaism, and ancient Christianity, it will also seek new theoretical models for approaching prophecy, divination, and oracles in the ancient world. Sources for study can include both texts and material culture from the ancient Mediterranean and Near East.
cdowis Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: We probably need to go a bit further with this question and get to the nub of God's basic rule that no revelation is necessary whenever man has the wherewithal on his own. This applies to translation, to planning and strategy meetings, and the like. In the economy of God, there is no value in providing aid when it is not needed. We already have the right of free choice and need to make decisions based on the good principles we have been taught. At some point the training wheels need to come off, and we need to fend for ourselves. That's what Earthlife is all about. This is a very different view than the meeting "sucking the spirit out of the room." I call it spiritual maturity, while others are still in their infancy. 1
california boy Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I disagree somewhat on just what Mormon missionaries said and what their contacts were asked to pray about. It is true that a key argument by the missionaries was always that a modern prophet could settle typical denominational religious controversies by revelation from God. But that has always been in the context of teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how that is buttressed by the Book of Mormon, and that is what investigators were asked to pray about. Is the Book of Mormon true? Is the Mormon version of the Gospel true? The old missionary tract "Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story" was merely an aid in getting to those objectives. My question would be, what does it mean to say that "a prophet of God was actually God's mouthpiece"? Yes, most Mormons are taught that notion, but what does it mean? And does it apply as much to modern prophets as to ancient ones? I say that it applies to both in equal measure and for the same reasons. Naturally, one must understand ancient prophecy to make head or tail of such a comparison, and a great deal has been written about ancient prophecy. One can consult those books and articles which have been written, but there are online courses on the Old Testament offered by BYU. Religion A301 and 302, and you can find similar courses online at other schools. Indeed, a symposium will be held at Yale University, April 20–21, 2017, West Campus, on “Between Heaven and Earth: Divination, Prophecy and Oracles in the Ancient World,” which you could attend. The blurb accompanying their announcement says: You do realize that I was specifically relating my own personal experience while on my mission. At that time I think i had a much different view of how a prophet received revelation. I would definitely not teach the same principle today. I no long believe the prophet has that kind of relationship with God. And probably never had that kind of relationship. I was definitely naive about what it meant to be a prophet. Mormonism is much less different from other religions than what I once thought.
Gray Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) On 1/21/2017 at 10:44 AM, mfbukowski said: Yeah right. Re-writing scripture at will is not exactly fundamentalism. He took it literally if he liked it, if not he just re-wrote it. He re-wrote it and he took the revised version literally. That's literalism, albeit a novel approach to literalism. Joseph doesn't seem to have been very metaphorically minded in his views. Edited January 22, 2017 by Gray
Gray Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 On 1/21/2017 at 11:02 AM, mfbukowski said: Nah, just try meditation. Plugging into the spirit can be a learned brain state, like biofeedback for Alpha waves. It is an attitude https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201504/alpha-brain-waves-boost-creativity-and-reduce-depression Yes, but the atmosphere in our church meetings (particularly leadership meetings) isn't very conducive to that state of mind, IMO.
Gray Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 19 hours ago, cdowis said: This is a very different view than the meeting "sucking the spirit out of the room." I call it spiritual maturity, while others are still in their infancy. One man's maturity is another man's immaturity. As I've matured I've gotten way less orthodox in my views, and I see that as a spiritual maturation. But it's not as if there is an objective standard with which to measure spiritual maturity.
Recommended Posts