Johnny Ghost Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 4 hours ago, pogi said: We are a proselyting religion because we believe that we hold the keys and authority to perform the ordinances of the church which are necessary to salvation. The church does not discredit the spiritual experiences of others, the church discredits their "creeds". That is what God told Joseph, that their "creeds" were an abomination, not their spiritual experiences. Creeds are often cultural distortions to the pure message of the spirit. We believe that all will be led to Christ by following the light that is in them to the best of their ability. We perform baptisms for the dead because we believe that the light in other's is good, not because they are abominations. But their "spiritual" experiences supposedly tell them that their creeds are true, right? Yet mormonism says the creeds are false. So, isn't that discounting the "spiritual" experience? If your son or daughter took Moroni's challenge and then said the result was that Scientology was the way for him or her, wouldn't you discount the spiritual experience as fake?
LittleNipper Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, mfbukowski said: So the Bible is true because you believe it is. You NEVER answer the question. Very sorry quite frankly if you find this threatening. I see you cannot answer so I will stop asking. I want to be nice like Pogi when I grow up, but I have a few books that say that they are true also and they are not. Sei gesund The Bible is true because it is historically accurate, it's piratical, and its premises have been tested.time and again with proven outcomes... And Jesus substantiated the Bible. Edited January 12, 2017 by LittleNipper
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You and rockpond both continue to ignore the obvious and are in denial about the primary reason why some people leave Mormonism. Even other anti-Mormons frankly disagree with you: You're tenacious, Robert, but ultimately doomed. One of the articles of faith amongst the Dehlinites and similar denominations is 'We believe that all exit narratives must at all times be validated and never questioned'. And few things help validate an exit narrative (or even just a criticism) more than the 'TBM CV': born in the covenant, deacons quorum president, teachers quorum president, bishop's first assistant, Eagle Scout before anyone else, four years of seminary, seminary class president, hard-working missionary, married within 3 months of entering BYU, BYU degree, A's in religion classes, second BYU degree, elders quorum president, ward mission leader, high councillor, bishop's counselor (twice), owned a library the size of a small Deseret Book Shop, read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover every year, etc. In short, 'Out of all the TBMs to every walk the earth, I demand to be taken seriously because I was the most TBMey of them all!' 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 41 minutes ago, Johnny Ghost said: If your son or daughter took Moroni's challenge and then said the result was that Scientology was the way for him or her, wouldn't you discount the spiritual experience as fake? When full-time missionaries, my companion and I taught a woman who read the Book of Mormon and started praying. She told us that in answer to her prayers, she'd received a very strong and clear impression to go back to the church she had been raised in (but hadn't attended at all as an adult). We told her to go and wished her well. The only way I know how to verify what I think are God's communications to me is to act on them. Why would I deny that opportunity to someone else??? 1
Teancum Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 4 hours ago, bluebell said: You're surprised that you used to believe that God would tell you what was true? Is this because you no longer believe in God, or that you no longer believe He can/will answer such questions? I am skeptical that relying on personal revelation from what we refer to as the Holy Ghost is a reliable way to determine what is true. I am surprised that I used to think it was a reliable method to determine truth and the truth of claims by those claiming direct divine revelation.
Teancum Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 4 hours ago, pogi said: What is truth to you? How will you know when you find it? Can we know capital-T Truth, or is the interpretation of truth subject to our infinitely minuscule perspectives in this life? It depends in what specifically you are referencing when you say what is truth. I believe truth, real truth, not faith without hard evidence, should be based on evidence, rational and critical thinking and reason. And all thing we hold to be true should be challenged and rejected if better evidence is found.
mfbukowski Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnny Ghost said: I find post-modernism to be more of a defense for religious belief. Religion is being attacked and so one heads to the safety of saying that objective truth can't be proven. History can't be proven so is meaningless. One can't discount someone's belief because my understanding may be different from the other person so religious belief is justified. However, how does it fair when one wants to convert someone to their religious reality? Is that fair to do when post-modernism posits that we shouldn't judge another's subjective belief? So where is the justification in missionary work or judging someone who wants to leave? Is boundary maintenance justified? Should a post-modern adherent let their 18 or 19 year old spread his or her wings as long as the late teen doesn't hurt themselves or harm others? Is the 18 or 19 year old allowed to have their subjective belief system that differs from mormonism? I had two postmodern kids go on missions and have 3 of 4 endowed and the other is too young. Post-modernism like the church works. Both are the best explanations for the ineffable that mankind has come up with. I am here proselytizing to Mormons who already have half the equation. Mormonism Plus post-modernism is Unstoppable. But I am realistic whether or not that will happen is another issue. My kids understand that post-modernism and Mormonism are the best paradigms available, and they agree. Who am I to stop them from advocating the best Paradigm they have found. Do you understand why Einstein's Paradigm is better than Newtons? Do you understand that all paradigms are not created equal? 1
Yirgacheffe Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: OK but I think you did not understand the post. When a scientist looks at a guage and says "It reads 1723 degrees" that is a personal subjective experience. Perhaps he will call someone to verify his observation. That is two personal subjective observations and we define that though as "objective" because they are scientists. Perhaps those subjective observations, in their contexts, confirm that the "gizmo is at the right temperature" and "therefore whatsis is the case"- all based on the context which they are talkiing about, thereby "confirming" their INTERPRETATION of other data in the theory, which allegedly "corresponds to reality" The reality is the theory either works or it doesn't and it will work until further experience shows it doesn't. It's all opinions which work for awhile until something better comes along. So too with the church. That is why we have an open canon. Doctrines work until they do not, then they can be changed. As long as we behave in accordance with the mores the brethren establish, you are "Mormon". If you do not, then you are not "Mormon". Orthopraxis, not orthodoxy Now you will post that "Mormons don't believe that- I was not taught that" Sorry but irrelevant. "Now you will post that Mormons don't believe that- I was not taught that" Nope, it would be really odd for me to say any such thing. Nor do I see how your post has any bearing on my point, my only point. If a person says "I left because of intellectual reasons", that's why they left, if a person says "I joined the church because the spirit guided me", that's why they joined.
mfbukowski Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said: "Now you will post that Mormons don't believe that- I was not taught that" Nope, it would be really odd for me to say any such thing. Nor do I see how your post has any bearing on my point, my only point. If a person says "I left because of intellectual reasons", that's why they left, if a person says "I joined the church because the spirit guided me", that's why they joined. Sorry I am not following your argument at all. Freud taught that people are often mistaken about why they think they do things. Edited January 12, 2017 by mfbukowski
kllindley Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said: "Now you will post that Mormons don't believe that- I was not taught that" Nope, it would be really odd for me to say any such thing. Nor do I see how your post has any bearing on my point, my only point. If a person says "I left because of intellectual reasons", that's why they left, if a person says "I joined the church because the spirit guided me", that's why they joined. You really should read the book "The Righteous Mind." It's written by a liberal atheist who cites dozens of research studies to prove that we really don't know why we do things. Especially when it comes to morality. We make emotional decisions and then make up reasons to defend them. That's just the science of how the brain works. Edited January 12, 2017 by kllindley 2
cdowis Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Johnny Ghost said: But their "spiritual" experiences supposedly tell them that their creeds are true, right? Yet mormonism says the creeds are false. So, isn't that discounting the "spiritual" experience? If your son or daughter took Moroni's challenge and then said the result was that Scientology was the way for him or her, wouldn't you discount the spiritual experience as fake? Not at all. I would simply say that I got a different answer. Each of us is personally responsible for our own decisions in life and will live with the consequences. I wish them all the best. Edited January 12, 2017 by cdowis
LittleNipper Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) The Bible is true because it is historically accurate, it's practical, and its premises have been tested time and again with proven outcomes... And Jesus substantiated the Bible. Edited January 13, 2017 by LittleNipper
Yirgacheffe Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Sorry I am not following your argument at all. Freud taught that people are often mistaken about why they think they do things. So all this talk about reality being what the narrator says about his or her life and experiences is hooey and it's the people around them who determine their reality by explaining their experiences to them. 1
Yirgacheffe Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 8 hours ago, kllindley said: You really should read the book "The Righteous Mind." It's written by a liberal atheist who cites dozens of research studies to prove that we really don't know why we do things. Especially when it comes to morality. We make emotional decisions and then make up reasons to defend them. That's just the science of how the brain works. Well if we don't know why we do things then someone else knows even less about why we do things.
Anakin7 Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, LittleNipper said: The Bible is true because it is historically accurate, it's piratical, and its premises have been tested.time and again with proven outcomes... And Jesus substantiated the Bible. Yes The Holy Bible is True, parts have been verified, others have not.There was no "Bible" for Jesus to substantiate in his day. The Atonement it Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood In His Eternal Debt Grace Anakin7 Edited January 12, 2017 by Anakin7
Anakin7 Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 From my LDS Kryptonian Archive Vault - http://www.14lds.com/changes.htm http://www.14lds.com/true.htm http://www.14lds.com/complete http://14lds.com/missing.htm The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7
RevTestament Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, LittleNipper said: The Bible is true because it is historically accurate, it's piratical, and its premises have been tested.time and again with proven outcomes... And Jesus substantiated the Bible. So follow what it says.... rather than the creeds of men(ie who were a minority of the early church btw).
Gray Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 15 hours ago, RevTestament said: Actually, no Daniel didn't predict that. That is the Catholic interpretation which btw, you are right would cause the prophecy to fail. However, there are some big problems with that interpretation which clue the close reader into why it is an incorrect interpretation. That's the historical interpretation of the text, taken in its historical context. You may have a different theological interpretation, but that wouldn't have anything to do with history. 15 hours ago, RevTestament said: You may note that the vile one has both the king of the north and the south come against him if you read it plainly. Therefore the vile one cannot be Antiochus Ephiphanes since he would be the king of the north. In actuality Antiochus Epiphanes figures much earlier in the prophecy. The vile one is the bishop of Rome who takes the estate of the raiser of taxes/Constantine who took the estate of the pontifex maximus, or Caesar. Rome is introduced into the prophecy by the general Pompey who is invited into the holy land and is figured in at verse 16. That is why the day of trouble has not happened yet - the prophecy didn't deal with the coming of our Savior - that is chapter 9. This is a theological interpretation, divorced from the historical context of the text. Nothing wrong with that, but it has nothing to do with history.
cdowis Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 2 hours ago, LittleNipper said: The Bible is true because it is historically accurate, it's piratical, and its premises have been tested.time and again with proven outcomes... And Jesus substantiated the Bible. But the issue remains that the INTERPRETATIONS of what is taught in the Bible are in dispute. The theologians and philosophers disagree even on baisc salvation doctrines. 1
Gray Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, LittleNipper said: The Bible is true because it is historically accurate, it's piratical, and its premises have been tested.time and again with proven outcomes... And Jesus substantiated the Bible. Whoever told you the Bible was historically accurate was sorely misinformed. It's true that the Bible is an important historical source, but it's not a history. Edited January 12, 2017 by Gray 4
RevTestament Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Gray said: That's the historical interpretation of the text, taken in its historical context. You may have a different theological interpretation, but that wouldn't have anything to do with history. Sure it does. There is all kinds of history in my interpretation. I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that the "prophecy" was not written until the time of the Maccabees? If so that is a strange position to take to claim that the "prophecy" of Daniel fails or is wrong, when it is not a prophecy at all, but written as history. 43 minutes ago, Gray said: This is a theological interpretation, divorced from the historical context of the text. Nothing wrong with that, but it has nothing to do with history. Your "historical interpretation" doesn't follow the prophecy: Daniel 11:4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom[Alexander the Great's] shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity[four of his generals], nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those. Ok, according to history, who plucked up the four Grecian kingdoms? Hint: it was Rome. Pompey came in and conquered the Seleucid Empire. The true interpretation is indeed the "historical" one. Your "historical interpretation" doesn't follow the prophecy at all. It leaves out Rome. Here is where the prophecy speaks of Antiochus Epiphanes: " 15 So the king of the north shall come, and cast up amount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand." It was Antiochus Epiphanes whom the chosen people could not stand against, and who fell. He took the temple and set up a statue to worship. So the prophetic interpretation is quite "historical." "16 But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed." Note this verse differs from the previous ones in that the king of the south is no longer referenced. Who came against Antiochus Epiphanes? According to your "historical interpretation" that was Rome, when a Roman general showed up and drew a line in the sand and dared Antiochus to cross it. So Rome is the "he." Here is the remaining historical context: "17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him." Who are the "upright ones?" They are the two Hasmonean descendants who went to Pompey to settle their inheritance dispute and caused Rome to come in with the strength of their whole kingdom ie Pompey brought his whole army to Jerusalem. Who was the daughter who got corrupted? Jerusalem. Pompey appointed his own high priest. But Jerusalem did not stand by Rome. "18 After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him." On his return trip Pompey stopped to "conquer" or at least claim more isles. The prince for his own behalf was Caesar who tried to take all the power of Pompey and the Senate and become sole ruler. "19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found." This describes the death of Pompey who fled from Caesar back to his "own land" in the east, but stumbled in battle and fell alone to Caesar in Egypt according to history. "20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle." Caesar's estate was that of emperor and pontifex maximus or chief priest of the pontifical college. Subsequent emperor's also took this title, including Constantine, who was known for taxing and building his new capitol of Constantinople. "21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries." Who next took the title of pontifex maximus? By now you have guessed it: the bishop of Rome, who obtained the "kingdom by flatteries." There you have it. All quite "historical." Edited January 12, 2017 by RevTestament 1
pogi Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Teancum said: It depends in what specifically you are referencing when you say what is truth. I believe truth, real truth, not faith without hard evidence, should be based on evidence, rational and critical thinking and reason. And all thing we hold to be true should be challenged and rejected if better evidence is found. I am not referencing anything in particular, I am simply trying to understand what you mean by truth. When you observe the history of man, would you say that man's truth evolves over time? Do you anticipate the evolution of man's truth to ever stop? Why or why not? If you anticipate man's truth to continue to evolve, what does that say about "hard evidence" and "rational/critical thinking and reason"? Are they not just as fluid as truth itself? How will you know when you have discovered "real truth"? Edited January 12, 2017 by pogi 1
mfbukowski Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: So all this talk about reality being what the narrator says about his or her life and experiences is hooey and it's the people around them who determine their reality by explaining their experiences to them. Okay I get you now that is an excellent point. I think as always it comes down to words. One person may think that they are being intellectual and for them they are being intellectual. The other person hearing what they are saying sees so many flaws in it that they consider it gibberish. I'm going to be a little brutal here but to the other person it sounds like children arguing. So I think this may be a semantic thing and definitely a pride thing. But on the other hand the perception that the argument is not sufficiently "intellectual" becomes the issue. But thanks for the comment, it definitely got me thinking! This is the cutest video in the world and I think about it often here. My favorite part: "YOU'RE not REAL- I'm real" ! Edited January 12, 2017 by mfbukowski 4
Tacenda Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You're tenacious, Robert, but ultimately doomed. One of the articles of faith amongst the Dehlinites and similar denominations is 'We believe that all exit narratives must at all times be validated and never questioned'. And few things help validate an exit narrative (or even just a criticism) more than the 'TBM CV': born in the covenant, deacons quorum president, teachers quorum president, bishop's first assistant, Eagle Scout before anyone else, four years of seminary, seminary class president, hard-working missionary, married within 3 months of entering BYU, BYU degree, A's in religion classes, second BYU degree, elders quorum president, ward mission leader, high councillor, bishop's counselor (twice), owned a library the size of a small Deseret Book Shop, read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover every year, etc. In short, 'Out of all the TBMs to every walk the earth, I demand to be taken seriously because I was the most TBMey of them all!' There is truth to this statement!
Tacenda Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Okay I get you now that is an excellent point. I think as always it comes down to words. One person may think that they are being intellectual and for them they are being intellectual. The other person hearing what they are saying sees so many flaws in it that they consider it gibberish. I'm going to be a little brutal here but to the other person it sounds like children arguing. So I think this may be a semantic thing and definitely a pride thing. But on the other hand the perception that the argument is not sufficiently "intellectual" becomes the issue. But thanks for the comment, it definitely got me thinking! This is the cutest video in the world and I think about it often here. This is priceless!!!
Recommended Posts