Robert F. Smith Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 13 hours ago, rockpond said: It was available but it's hard for someone to realize that they are interested in a topic that they didn't know exists because they already believed they had been given the full and complete story. For example, how would someone think of researching Joseph Smith's polyandry when they had been taught that plural marriage didn't start until Brigham Young and the saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley? Good question, but it applies to the goose as well as to the gander. One does not automatically have a crew of professional archivists and historians just by going "poof." in magical fashion. In all societies, not just Mormon, the development of the requisite sophistication takes time, a lot of time. And all societies tend to show the same bumbling stupidity in getting there. That is human nature. The "call to perfection" is a major fallacy. and does not constitute a fair or balanced appraisal of the historical scene. The bosses often simply do not understand what they do not understand, i.e., the implications of not having something they don't even know they need. Realization takes generations. Meantime, the documents were carefully preserved, waiting for a generation of scholars who understood their value. Were there misconceptions? Of course. There always are, and in the rough and tumble of scholarly debate no one conclusion is likely to stand unchallenged. However, in the course of time, some historical trends do become clear. Reading the relevant books and journals helps in understanding this fact, along with attending annual meetings of societies such as the Mormon History Association (which only began in 1965) -- which will be meeting in St Louis this coming June 1-4.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 7 hours ago, california boy said: I really can't believe that you are still trying to get Robert to admit that he has no support for his assertion. This, again, is what he said. I also read through all of his links. And like you, not only did I not find any data, I found little in what he did link to support his statement. At this point, these things are clear. 1. Robert's assertion has absolutely no data to support it. It is simply his own opinion. 2. He continues to try to support his statement with opinions of others that really are irrelevant to his statement. 3. He consistently labels people anti-Mormon that disagree with his theories. In his own twisted mind, he figures if he calls you anti-Mormon than that makes his position the right one. After all, anti-Mormons can never be right. Every one of these conclusions are in every post he has been making. I gave up. At this point, it is pointless. The question I would ask you is "at this point, do you really expect to have an honest answer to Roberts statement by him?" It is a false statement and he can not support it by any actual data. Once again, california boy, you fail to engage my substantive quotes, and accompany that with the false claim that I believe the anti-Mormon position is always wrong. I said nothing of the kind, and even pointed out that anti-Mormons such as Rob Bowman actually engage in substantive comments -- with which I often agree (despite your claim that I have a "twisted mind" -- does anyone disagreeing with you automatically have a "twisted mind," california boy?). "Anti-Mormons" are not always that difficult to find or define, and I wonder why they are embarrassed by the term. Especially since they feel free to call other people names and make false claims about them . . . Meantime, I provided the substantive data. A scholarly response from you would be to discuss that data, and to show why it is deficient in some way, rather than engaging in knee-jerk rejection of it -- the way that Donald Trump dismisses anything he doesn't like with a wave of his hand and some ridiculous invective.
rockpond Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Good question, but it applies to the goose as well as to the gander. One does not automatically have a crew of professional archivists and historians just by going "poof." in magical fashion. In all societies, not just Mormon, the development of the requisite sophistication takes time, a lot of time. And all societies tend to show the same bumbling stupidity in getting there. That is human nature. The "call to perfection" is a major fallacy. and does not constitute a fair or balanced appraisal of the historical scene. The bosses often simply do not understand what they do not understand, i.e., the implications of not having something they don't even know they need. Realization takes generations. Meantime, the documents were carefully preserved, waiting for a generation of scholars who understood their value. Were there misconceptions? Of course. There always are, and in the rough and tumble of scholarly debate no one conclusion is likely to stand unchallenged. However, in the course of time, some historical trends do become clear. Reading the relevant books and journals helps in understanding this fact, along with attending annual meetings of societies such as the Mormon History Association (which only began in 1965) -- which will be meeting in St Louis this coming June 1-4. All true. Unfortunately, the institutional church arrived a little late in terms of widely publishing a more correct narrative. The fact that many authors, bloggers, and podcasters were discussing the issues long before the Church, now has the Brethren playing catch-up.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, california boy said: Well actually you did say people leave based on their social comfort level. Here is your statement. Quote I have never said "that people leave the LDS for social reasons but not for valid intellectual reasons." In fact, I have said the opposite. Since you are now claiming that it is a false statement, we all agree that your statement is false. Quote Most Mormons who leave the LDS faith do so based on their social comfort level, and any judgment made about the BofM is merely ancillary to that social feeling You are a piece of work. Really. Now are you going to call me and Rockpond anti-Mormon again for actually quoting what you said like you did earlier in this thread when you called me anti-Mormon for agreeing with what an Apostle of God said? Maybe your problem here is your failure to pay attention in High School English class, california boy. Or maybe you have simply forgotten what you learned there, and need to take a collegiate level course in logic or critical thinking (the latter required in California in order to obtain a B.A.). Are you so afraid to get serious instead of playing games? These are easy to understand English sentences of mine, which you completely misunderstand. Why? Both of my statements are accurately quoted by you here, so it should be simple to parse and understand them. I have repeatedly said that "most Mormons who leave the LDS faith do so based on their social comfort level," and the research supports that conclusion (research which you do not deign to respond to). "Most" does not mean "all," as you seem to believe. And I have never said "that people leave the LDS faith for social reasons but not for valid intellectual reasons." That is your false claim. Since I have always stated that some do in fact leave for valid as well as pretended intellectual reasons, that immediately makes your claim about me false. You deliberately misstate my position as absolute -- that people only leave the faith for social reasons, and never for any other reasons. I have never said that, and that is just the sort of obfuscation one should expect from someone lacking sincerity. Edited January 13, 2017 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 18 minutes ago, rockpond said: All true. Unfortunately, the institutional church arrived a little late in terms of widely publishing a more correct narrative. The fact that many authors, bloggers, and podcasters were discussing the issues long before the Church, now has the Brethren playing catch-up. The institutional churches (all churches and synagogues, and mosques and ashrams) are always going to be playing catch-up with the professional historians and other specialists. The authors must first do the research, deliver papers, get responses, publish in refereed journals and books, which then undergo several more rounds of exchange (sometimes for a generation or more), until the main lines of consensus become clear. By that time, provided that there is an internet, the blogs, podcasts, and popular books feed public discussion, and religious institutions begin utilizing some of that material. Such delay is inevitable and praiseworthy, not blameworthy. Being "late" goes with the territory, and the Brethren will just have to take their hits for it.
pogi Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, Teancum said: Your question is so broad that it really has little to no meaning. That is kind of my point. Truth is so broad and vast that any claim to "know" truth with a capital-T is kind of absurd. 20 hours ago, Teancum said: Certainly some truth evolves over time. Scientific truth certainly does as it builds on itself and at times over turns some things that were believed to be true. So all you can do is "believe" in scientific truth, right? You can't know that what you believe today will not be considered as incomplete and ignorant of the truth in 1,000 years from now. You can't claim to not be blind to the broader perspective. Any true scientist would acknowledge that while science is very useful, it cannot tell us the truth of reality. It is all interpretations of reality based on limited understanding and limited perspective. 20 hours ago, Teancum said: But hard science is suited to this. Religious truth claims are the opposite. Go on faith, pray, assume your position is true and find ways to confirm it. Doubt your doubts rather than embrace your doubts and do everything you can to prove your truth wrong and if it holds up still then embrace it. Religion does just the opposite. Religious truth is just as ignorant as scientific truth in many ways. It is entirely incomplete and ignorant of the broader perspective. Truth requires me to accept the words of no man as the truth, as the words of all men fall short of absolute truth and perfect knowledge. Words can only direct me to truth. Religion only offers us the tools of spiritual observation. The true order of science is not to create truth, but to describe the temporal order of reality through observation. Without all of the variables in the equation of eternity, all scientific descriptions are relative to perspective and fall short of the BIG PICTURE. The true order of religion is not to create truth, but to yield to the spiritual order of reality through observation. Religious descriptions of truth fall short too. That's why Christ used parables, and said "it is like unto...", because truth cannot be captured in the corrupt language of man. The true purpose of religion is not to speak truth, but to yield to it. Speaking the truth will come only with Godhood. As such, don't take my word for it The purpose of science is to describe temporal reality. The purpose of religion is to yield to spiritual reality. The key to understanding spiritual truths is through yielding. It requires abandonment of all preconceived notions of truth which are all corrupt with the cultures of men, and requires submission to the spiritual realm by letting yourself see and hear the word of God as spoken by his mouth which can only be heard in the holy of holies of the "heart". Words of scripture are only seeds to truth, they do not speak the truth. The truth cannot be captured in word. Edited January 13, 2017 by pogi 1
rockpond Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The institutional churches (all churches and synagogues, and mosques and ashrams) are always going to be playing catch-up with the professional historians and other specialists. The authors must first do the research, deliver papers, get responses, publish in refereed journals and books, which then undergo several more rounds of exchange (sometimes for a generation or more), until the main lines of consensus become clear. By that time, provided that there is an internet, the blogs, podcasts, and popular books feed public discussion, and religious institutions begin utilizing some of that material. Such delay is inevitable and praiseworthy, not blameworthy. Being "late" goes with the territory, and the Brethren will just have to take their hits for it. I don't think the delay on the part of the LDS Church is praiseworthy... not for a church that owns a university, publishes mountains of curriculum, has a full-time history department, and a guiding belief in the importance of genealogy. As you stated, the material was available. The Church chose not to included it in its curriculum and publications. That was a choice to control the narrative. Then when the internet took that control away, the institutional church finally started widely publishing a more complete narrative. You can't say that the Church was just waiting for professional historians and other specialists to do their work. It had been done for a long time (as you stated earlier). 1
Stargazer Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 3 hours ago, rockpond said: ... So I'm saying, if a church member is taught that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by looking through the U&T at the words on the plates why would that member ever think to go research other methods that were used to translate? So, after decades of believing that the Book of Mormon was translated they learn that instead it was revealed through a stone in a hat, that change can be a bit unsettling. Though, how they process it in terms of their testimony varies. Can we agree on that last paragraph? Yes, I think we can agree on it. I guess that if they have a firm testimony of the Book of Mormon obtained from the Spirit, then it seems to me that it shouldn't cause them a great deal of difficulty. But I recognize that it might. I tend to approach the matter a bit handicapped by my testimony, so to speak. I say "handicapped" in that it's somewhat difficult for me to relate to the problem. It's as if someone came up to me shattered emotionally because they had discovered that the Moon wasn't made of green cheese, after all.
rockpond Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Yes, I think we can agree on it. I guess that if they have a firm testimony of the Book of Mormon obtained from the Spirit, then it seems to me that it shouldn't cause them a great deal of difficulty. But I recognize that it might. I tend to approach the matter a bit handicapped by my testimony, so to speak. I say "handicapped" in that it's somewhat difficult for me to relate to the problem. It's as if someone came up to me shattered emotionally because they had discovered that the Moon wasn't made of green cheese, after all. For some who I have spoken with, it was the opposite: It was like discovering that the Moon WAS made of green cheese. I know of a few personal acquaintances who had to work hard to process the change in what they believed about the Book of Mormon and trying to wrap their testimony around that new knowledge. I think that the recent church publications on the seer stone have helped. There was a time, not too long ago, when many members would consider Joseph receiving the Book of Mormon through a stone in a hat as one of those "anti-Mormon lies". That made it extremely difficult for members who learned the full narrative about the "translation" process to talk to others in the church about it. Now, thankfully, it is easier for people to discuss.
Gray Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 22 hours ago, RevTestament said: CFR please. If Daniel was written that late, how come they do not believe what they wrote about their Messiah in Daniel 9? Again, your problem is you are calling this a failed "prophecy" on the one hand, and on the other saying it is not a prophecy at all, but a piece of history. Yes, I do not represent that the truth is "a historical critical view of the text." The truth essentially never corresponds to the "critical" or "scholarly" view. It seems God is smarter than the scholars. The vile person is not Antiochus. Antiochus has to be the king of the north correct? " 40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over." If Antiochus is the king of the northern empire of Seleucia, how can he come against himself? The vile person is neither the king of the north nor the king of the south(Ptolemy). Your scholarly critical view doesn't comport with even a plain reading of the text. I know what it is, and it is wrong on several fronts I have shown you. Hi Rev, will try to get back to you early next week. Busy day today!
california boy Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Once again, california boy, you fail to engage my substantive quotes, and accompany that with the false claim that I believe the anti-Mormon position is always wrong. I said nothing of the kind, and even pointed out that anti-Mormons such as Rob Bowman actually engage in substantive comments -- with which I often agree (despite your claim that I have a "twisted mind" -- does anyone disagreeing with you automatically have a "twisted mind," california boy?). "Anti-Mormons" are not always that difficult to find or define, and I wonder why they are embarrassed by the term. Especially since they feel free to call other people names and make false claims about them . . . Meantime, I provided the substantive data. A scholarly response from you would be to discuss that data, and to show why it is deficient in some way, rather than engaging in knee-jerk rejection of it -- the way that Donald Trump dismisses anything he doesn't like with a wave of his hand and some ridiculous invective. Mostly I just got tired of you labeling me as anti-Mormon. I don't really interact with people that so misrepresent who I am and what I stand for. When you started to label me as anti-Mormon for quoting an apostle of God and agreeing with him, I was pretty much through with you. While I disagree with some of the policies and practices of the Mormon Church, i certainly respect those on this board and members of my family that are members. And I have stated repeatedly that I believe the Mormon church is a great place for those that find peace in its teachings and community. At some point, when you can stop the personal attacks and instead focus on what I actually say, then perhaps we can have an interesting dialogue. At least that is my hope. 2
Anakin7 Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I hope you understand no one has a clue what you are talking about right? I mean I get what you are talking about in the Revelation quote, but I would be interested in the star wars stuff and what all that means to you. I am a fan of things that have to do with Superman and Star Wars and I incorporate aspects from them into my LDS Sentinel title - earthly patterned after the Heavenly. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited January 14, 2017 by Anakin7 1
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 13 hours ago, Stargazer said: Of course I'm coming to this really late and by now it's irrelevant because someone already commented with what I'm about to write, but I've not read through all 23 pages of this thread to see if anyone has said what I'm about to say. I only went four pages ahead and I might have missed something. Apologies for the duplication of effort if it is indeed duplication. You write: "If you can point to a verse in the scriptures that clearly disallow gay marriage or can point to a revelation declared by church leaders that specifically forbids gay marriage in the temple then I will respond." Since there is no such revelation or scripture then I cannot provide one, so I don't expect you to respond to this. I don't know what your definition of dogma is, but the primary sense that seems to be how the term is used in connection with religion has nothing to do with interpretation of scripture, but: See the Wikipedia article on dogma for this general sense. But that is how I have always understood it, being the unwillingness to rationally discuss a belief. I.e. an assertion without discussion, kind of. Now, you make the amazing statement that it is dogma that gays cannot be married, because it cannot be supported by a direct revelation. You say that it isn't enough to say that the Bible forbids homosexuality, and you won't discuss it. That, to me, at least, is being dogmatic. As a point of logic, if the Bible forbids homosexual acts, then it is follows that since marriage implies a sexual relationship, marriage between two persons of the same sex is also inescapably forbidden. If you insist that the Bible or modern revelation must contain a specific prohibition that cannot be logically inferred from previous principles then you are asking for an even more complex system than ever existed in the Law of Moses, where there were, what, as interpreted by Rabbis throughout the ages, there are 613 commandments, 24 of which deal with forbidden sex: see Judaism 101: Sex. Well, sure, there's a commandment that says Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder, but there isn't one that says you're not allowed to push someone off the Cliffs of Dover. So if I push someone and he happens thereby to fall off a cliff, and the fall kills him, well that's his problem, since he shouldn't have fallen off a cliff. My push was only a minor physical action and didn't hurt him -- it was the fall that did him in, and that's not my fault. Members of the Church who leave it because the Church won't seal same-sex couples in the temple or even accept same-sex marriage, and who use the "no specific commandment or revelation" issue as an excuse, don't have a leg to stand on. You're entitled to disagree of course. But I don't expect you to respond. :-) Asking for a verse of scripture which disallows same sex marriage is like asking for a scripture which disallows using leather products because they violate the rights of animals. Such concepts have been inconceivable since the dawn of mankind. It's really hard to imagine everything that is NOT covered in the bible but guess what? that is why we have an open canon and the church has issued the Proclamation on the Family But what I really find wrong with scriptures is that they say nothing about artificial intelligence or whether or not sex with robots counts as adultery, or the proper stance we should take with aliens who are more intelligent than we are. Clearly God is not omniscient since he did not think to include those prohibitions in the Bible. I need to start my own church, clearly to get revelations on all those problems. Not to mention use of the the psychedelic yet to be discovered drug Psilocybowski which induces religious visions precisely like the first vision, making such visions objective science, and whether the use of such a drug is prohibited by the word of wisdom when everyone who uses it finds that Mormonism is completely factual. 2
california boy Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Asking for a verse of scripture which disallows same sex marriage is like asking for a scripture which disallows using leather products because they violate the rights of animals. Such concepts have been inconceivable since the dawn of mankind. It's really hard to imagine everything that is NOT covered in the bible but guess what? that is why we have an open canon and the church has issued the Proclamation on the Family But what I really find wrong with scriptures is that they say nothing about artificial intelligence or whether or not sex with robots counts as adultery, or the proper stance we should take with aliens who are more intelligent than we are. Clearly God is not omniscient since he did not think to include those prohibitions in the Bible. I need to start my own church, clearly to get revelations on all those problems. Not to mention use of the the psychedelic yet to be discovered drug Psilocybowski which induces religious visions precisely like the first vision, making such visions objective science, and whether the use of such a drug is prohibited by the word of wisdom when everyone who uses it finds that Mormonism is completely factual. If only the proclamation on the family was a revelation you might have a point. If you can find a general authority that thinks it is, you might have a point. Perhaps the real question is, Has God quit giving revelations to his prophet? Because so far, no declaration of any revelation on this issue.
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 3 hours ago, california boy said: If only the proclamation on the family was a revelation you might have a point. If you can find a general authority that thinks it is, you might have a point. Perhaps the real question is, Has God quit giving revelations to his prophet? Because so far, no declaration of any revelation on this issue. This is obviously a distinction without a difference and a non- issue. Purely semantics. It is a declaration of doctrine. The whole point of my post was that same sex marriage has been unimaginable for the history of mankind and we can't EXPECT to have doctrines on what has never happened. Maybe you stopped reading it after the first line. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 14 hours ago, rockpond said: I don't think the delay on the part of the LDS Church is praiseworthy... not for a church that owns a university, publishes mountains of curriculum, has a full-time history department, and a guiding belief in the importance of genealogy. As you stated, the material was available. The Church chose not to included it in its curriculum and publications. That was a choice to control the narrative. Then when the internet took that control away, the institutional church finally started widely publishing a more complete narrative. You can't say that the Church was just waiting for professional historians and other specialists to do their work. It had been done for a long time (as you stated earlier). You are giving far more credit to the Brethren and the Church staff than is warranted, as though they actually knew the historical facts early on and were able to adequately interpret them. Although the LDS Church owned some colleges, they were relatively new compared to other church colleges, such as Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, et al., or the seminaries which had long existed for other churches. It takes a lot of time to develop that sort of professional theological and historical sophistication. Delay under such circumstances is the natural course of things, and there are no shortcuts. There was no such concept in the mind of the Brethren at that time. Why? Because there was no likelihood that they would know what they did not yet know. And even today, there is not one professional historian or theologian among them. Today, when the Brethren need a professional historian, or cyber expert, or a facilities manager, they hire one. That is how things work in the real world. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 9 hours ago, california boy said: Mostly I just got tired of you labeling me as anti-Mormon. I don't really interact with people that so misrepresent who I am and what I stand for. When you started to label me as anti-Mormon for quoting an apostle of God and agreeing with him, I was pretty much through with you. While I disagree with some of the policies and practices of the Mormon Church, i certainly respect those on this board and members of my family that are members. And I have stated repeatedly that I believe the Mormon church is a great place for those that find peace in its teachings and community. At some point, when you can stop the personal attacks and instead focus on what I actually say, then perhaps we can have an interesting dialogue. At least that is my hope. It works both ways, california boy. You cannot expect respect if you are not willing to give it. I always love a sincere exchange of views, and I couldn't care less whether I win a debate. That isn't why I am here. And, just like you, I prefer to be held to account for what I actually say, and take umbrage when I am misquoted. Yes, there are boundaries and propriety to be observed. Anger and emotion can cause any of us to lose track of that fact.
california boy Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: This is obviously a distinction without a difference and a non- issue. Purely semantics. It is a declaration of doctrine. The whole point of my post was that same sex marriage has been unimaginable for the history of mankind and we can't EXPECT to have doctrines on what has never happened. Maybe you stopped reading it after the first line. Nope read the whole thing. I agree that it would be unexpected for the scriptures to specifically mention gay marriage. But that is exactly why we have modern revelation. And no, it is not semantics. It is a lack of revelation.
california boy Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It works both ways, california boy. You cannot expect respect if you are not willing to give it. I always love a sincere exchange of views, and I couldn't care less whether I win a debate. That isn't why I am here. And, just like you, I prefer to be held to account for what I actually say, and take umbrage when I am misquoted. Yes, there are boundaries and propriety to be observed. Anger and emotion can cause any of us to lose track of that fact. I never insult your intelligence. I never attack you personally. I never say "your problem here is your failure to pay attention in High School English class". The reason I am on this site is to here and understand different views from my own. I enjoy hearing them. I learn from seeing other points of view. What I am not here for is to be falsely called anti-Mormon, have my intelligence insulted and told I lack an education. I am more than happy to hear other people challenge my statement. I am not willing to be insulted. At that point, I really don't care what the person says. It is not like you just did this once.
Stargazer Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 7 minutes ago, california boy said: Nope read the whole thing. I agree that it would be unexpected for the scriptures to specifically mention gay marriage. But that is exactly why we have modern revelation. And no, it is not semantics. It is a lack of revelation. I do wonder what would happen if such a revelation occurred. And that the Lord made clear that sex other than that between men and women who were legally and lawfully married to each other was his only approved modality of sexual expression, and that marriage between same sex persons was specifically not approved by him. I'm sure everyone would immediately say: "Oh, well, then that's it, then!" Am I right?
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 45 minutes ago, california boy said: Nope read the whole thing. I agree that it would be unexpected for the scriptures to specifically mention gay marriage. But that is exactly why we have modern revelation. And no, it is not semantics. It is a lack of revelation. Ain't dogmatism grand? It makes life so simple and black and white.
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 42 minutes ago, california boy said: I never insult your intelligence. I never attack you personally. I never say "your problem here is your failure to pay attention in High School English class". The reason I am on this site is to here and understand different views from my own. I enjoy hearing them. I learn from seeing other points of view. What I am not here for is to be falsely called anti-Mormon, have my intelligence insulted and told I lack an education. I am more than happy to hear other people challenge my statement. I am not willing to be insulted. At that point, I really don't care what the person says. It is not like you just did this once. Bob has many many publications to his credit and actually knows how to spell "hear".
rockpond Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You are giving far more credit to the Brethren and the Church staff than is warranted, as though they actually knew the historical facts early on and were able to adequately interpret them. Although the LDS Church owned some colleges, they were relatively new compared to other church colleges, such as Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, et al., or the seminaries which had long existed for other churches. It takes a lot of time to develop that sort of professional theological and historical sophistication. Delay under such circumstances is the natural course of things, and there are no shortcuts. There was no such concept in the mind of the Brethren at that time. Why? Because there was no likelihood that they would know what they did not yet know. And even today, there is not one professional historian or theologian among them. Today, when the Brethren need a professional historian, or cyber expert, or a facilities manager, they hire one. That is how things work in the real world. The Church has had a professional historian, with a paid staff for many, many decades. He is called by the Brethren and works right there in SLC with them. Interesting that you don't think the Brethren could manage to publish the type of information that dozens of bloggers and podcasters managed to do WITHOUT anywhere remotely close the resources of the church. 1
Teancum Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) On 1/13/2017 at 10:51 AM, pogi said: That is kind of my point. Truth is so broad and vast that any claim to "know" truth with a capital-T is kind of absurd. So all you can do is "believe" in scientific truth, right? You can't know that what you believe today will not be considered as incomplete and ignorant of the truth in 1,000 years from now. You can't claim to not be blind to the broader perspective. Any true scientist would acknowledge that while science is very useful, it cannot tell us the truth of reality. It is all interpretations of reality based on limited understanding and limited perspective. Religious truth is just as ignorant as scientific truth in many ways. It is entirely incomplete and ignorant of the broader perspective. Truth requires me to accept the words of no man as the truth, as the words of all men fall short of absolute truth and perfect knowledge. Words can only direct me to truth. Religion only offers us the tools of spiritual observation. The true order of science is not to create truth, but to describe the temporal order of reality through observation. Without all of the variables in the equation of eternity, all scientific descriptions are relative to perspective and fall short of the BIG PICTURE. The true order of religion is not to create truth, but to yield to the spiritual order of reality through observation. Religious descriptions of truth fall short too. That's why Christ used parables, and said "it is like unto...", because truth cannot be captured in the corrupt language of man. The true purpose of religion is not to speak truth, but to yield to it. Speaking the truth will come only with Godhood. As such, don't take my word for it The purpose of science is to describe temporal reality. The purpose of religion is to yield to spiritual reality. The key to understanding spiritual truths is through yielding. It requires abandonment of all preconceived notions of truth which are all corrupt with the cultures of men, and requires submission to the spiritual realm by letting yourself see and hear the word of God as spoken by his mouth which can only be heard in the holy of holies of the "heart". Words of scripture are only seeds to truth, they do not speak the truth. The truth cannot be captured in word. Pogi Can you give me your thoughts on the excerpt from a book I am reading called Faith vs Fact? “To evaluate any of these claims, we’ll first need to define “truth” and “knowledge,” which I’ll admit can be tricky, for these concepts are historically mired in philosophical controversy. For consistency, I’ll again use the Oxford English Dictionary’s definitions, which correspond roughly to most people’s vernacular use. “Truth” is “conformity with fact; agreement with reality; accuracy, correctness, verity (of statement or thought).” Because we’re discussing facts about the universe, I’ll use “fact” as Stephen Jay Gould defined “scientific facts”: those “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” Note that these definitions imply the use of independent confirmation—a necessary ingredient for determining what’s real—and consensus, that is, the ability of any reasonable person familiar with the method of study to agree on what it confirms. Mormons confirm the verities of their faith by revelation and authority, but everyone else, including members of other faiths, withholds their assent. That’s simply because there are no widely accepted observations that confirm Mormon dogma. It therefore fails to qualify as truth, scientific or otherwise. Finally, “knowledge” is simply the public acceptance of facts; as the Dictionary puts it, “The apprehension of fact or truth with the mind; clear and certain perception of fact or truth; the state or condition of knowing fact or truth.” What is true may exist without being recognized, but once it is it becomes knowledge. Similarly, knowledge isn’t knowledge unless it is factual, so “private knowledge” that comes through revelation or intuition isn’t really knowledge, for it’s missing the crucial ingredients of verification and consensus. According to these criteria, science certainly finds truths and yields knowledge, for it includes not only procedures for generating theories about the universe, but the testability and repeatability that brings—or erodes—consensus. The consensus need not be absolute: there are a very few scientists who reject the truth of evolution. And there are still people who believe that the Earth is flat. But the rejection of evolution almost invariably rests on religious grounds, and the rejection the rejection of a round Earth is based on a kind of fanaticism that’s blind to all evidence. While I’d hesitate to call these people “perverse,” I’d certainly call their behavior irrational. “As I’ve noted, the conceptual tools of science (though not the title of “scientist”) are available to everyone. I see science as a method, not a profession. Science construed in this broad way embraces all acts,including those of plumbers and electricians, that involve making and testing hypotheses. Indeed, that’s exactly what we do when fixing our cars or trying to find lost objects by retracing our steps rather than looking elsewhere or praying for the answer. Any discipline that studies the universe using the methods of “broad” science is capable in principle of finding truth and producing knowledge. If it doesn’t, no knowledge is possible.” Excerpt From: Jerry A. Coyne. “Faith Versus Fact.” Penguin Publishing Group, 2015-04-21. iBooks Edited January 14, 2017 by Teancum
california boy Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: I do wonder what would happen if such a revelation occurred. And that the Lord made clear that sex other than that between men and women who were legally and lawfully married to each other was his only approved modality of sexual expression, and that marriage between same sex persons was specifically not approved by him. I'm sure everyone would immediately say: "Oh, well, then that's it, then!" Am I right? I actually doubt it would make much difference to most that are gay. I think that most people think the church will not be changing their current position with a revelation or without one any time soon. What I seem to care more about is "claims" of revelation when none exist. It is not about the dogma. It about keeping things honest. I personally would not care one way or the other. If the church shocked everyone and said that all worthy members can now be married in the temple, I doubt that I would come back into the church. For one thing, my boyfriend would never join the church, and I wouldn't leave him over this issue. What do you think would happen if the church did receive a revelation allowing all worthy members to marry in the temple?
Recommended Posts