Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

The LDS Church has its own Canon that it relies on as much as those who,have the Bible only rely on the Bible.   LDS also believe in an open Canon though they rarely if ever add to it.  There is much debate as to whether manuals and other church publications constitute doctrine.  General conference talk?   Well maybe so long as they agree to Canon.  So the LDS church has its limits, checks, balances and dogma just as much as any other religion.   

Oh and if I understand it correctly Catholics are not bound by the Bible only as their popes can issue writings that are considered doctrinal.  

Then there are non Christian sects that have all sorts of ways for determining their doctrine.

I realize that.

CB said that all organized religion have dogma that they can't support using the scriptures.  I replied that only bible-only religions need to be able to support doctrine using only the bible.  The LDS church is not such a religion (there are others, such as Catholic as you said).

Then he said that the LDS church has dogma that can't be supporting using scriptures or revelation.  I asked for examples of the dogma in question.  He provided an example of prohibitions on SSM, and then said that interpretation of scripture or revelation (such as the Proclamation to the Family) to support it doesn't count and he refused to even discuss it.

Which isn't reasonable so it looks like our conversation is done.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

I was pointing out that even religions that don't rely solely on the Bible can not always validate dogma by other scriptures or modern revelation

I know that's what you were doing.  But refusing to discuss interpretation of scriptures or church documents (such as the PoF) isn't reasonable.   Our discussion has no where to go so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I realize that.

CB said that all organized religion have dogma that they can't support using the scriptures.  I replied that only bible-only religions need to be able to support doctrine using only the bible.  The LDS church is not such a religion (there are others, such as Catholic as you said).

Then he said that the LDS church has dogma that can't be supporting using scriptures or revelation.  I asked for examples of the dogma in question.  He provided an example of prohibitions on SSM, and then said that interpretation of scripture or revelation (such as the Proclamation to the Family) to support it doesn't count and he refused to even discuss it.

Which isn't reasonable so it looks like our conversation is done.

I'd agree with CB in that any time one takes to interpreting anything, including scripture, one is forming dogma, or trying to. I find his example apt.  But the notion of supporting one's dogma from interpretation of scripture is irrelevant to his point.  Seems to be a bit of talking past each other, in this.  I don't see him claiming, "the LDS Church has dogma that can't be support[ed] using scriptures or revelation", while you do.  I see him claiming, rather, the LDS has dogma that is not necessarily found in scripture--whether one feels there is scriptural or other support for the dogma is irrelevant though. 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, rpn said:

As of 10:33 Jan 3rd the link is no longer working.   Here is a screenshot (if it comes through, otherwise I don't know if the post has beed withdrawn, or it is a computer glitch).

2017 'The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormomism.pdf

I was curious what the article was.  Thanks for getting it to the rest of us who missed it the first time.  There is far too much equating the Church and God in this piece for me to take it seriously.  That and other criticisms that were given earlier seem to make the whole article weak and/or wrong to me. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd agree with CB in that any time one takes to interpreting anything, including scripture, one is forming dogma, or trying to. I find his example apt.  But the notion of supporting one's dogma from interpretation of scripture is irrelevant to his point.  Seems to be a bit of talking past each other, in this.  I don't see him claiming, "the LDS Church has dogma that can't be support[ed] using scriptures or revelation", while you do.  I see him claiming, rather, the LDS has dogma that is not necessarily found in scripture--whether one feels there is scriptural or other support for the dogma is irrelevant though. 

CB's own words-"I was pointing out that even religions that don't rely solely on the Bible can not always validate dogma by other scriptures or modern revelation."

"You don't think the Mormon church has dogma that are at best is a leap from some scripture including the BOM and POGP but are not based on any revelation from God?"

How is the interpretation of scripture irrelevant?  All scripture not written originally in English is an interpretation for us.  How, for example, can someone claim that he refuses to discuss any scriptures in the bible concerning homosexuality or the Proclamation to the Family while he makes the claim that scriptures and revelation are silent on whether or not SSM should be performed in the temple?

I don't see those as reasonable parameters for the discussion.

Edited January 3, 2017 by bluebell

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

CB's own words-"I was pointing out that even religions that don't rely solely on the Bible can not always validate dogma by other scriptures or modern revelation."

Well I certainly should not have chimed in.  I know you and I have had some difficulties in the past understanding each other's points.  And I shouldn't try to argue for him, because I doubt I'd be able to answer for his every claim.  If I misunderstood him, so be it. 

I would maintain, though, that the LDS Church creates dogma as soon as it tries to interpret scripture.  The example given by CB is interesting because it would have to be revelation since it is not found in scripture.  I don't know that he's saying this process of creating dogma that is extra-scriptural is a bad thing.  I certainly wouldn't.  It is inevitable.  Some Churches, including the LDS Church, claim revelation for the additions, but that seems beside the point. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Well I certainly should not have chimed in.  I know you and I have had some difficulties in the past understanding each other's points.  And I shouldn't try to argue for him, because I doubt I'd be able to answer for his every claim.  If I misunderstood him, so be it. 

I would maintain, though, that the LDS Church creates dogma as soon as it tries to interpret scripture.  The example given by CB is interesting because it would have to be revelation since it is not found in scripture.  I don't know that he's saying this process of creating dogma that is extra-scriptural is a bad thing.  I certainly wouldn't.  It is inevitable.  Some Churches, including the LDS Church, claim revelation for the additions, but that seems beside the point. 

The discussion was never on the existence or creation of dogma.  Dogma is just another word for doctrine; i have no issues with it's use.

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The discussion was never on the existence or creation of dogma.  Dogma is just another word for doctrine; i have no issues with it's use.

Well color me confused, then.  Since I inserted myself, which was a mistake, I might as well take it further. 

From page 1, CB:

Quote

The irony of what this blogger does is exactly one of the main reasons people are leaving organized religion.  Religion makes statements that are at best leaps from some scripture, but may have noting to do with the dogma that they create.  For example don't drink blood means no blood transfusions. 

I would guess I'm closer to what CB is intimating then you are.  But that's a silly game to play since he's a participator who can and most likely will chime in with his thoughts.  So sentence two above is confusing to me. But, he introduces "dogma" from the beginning of your guys' discussion.  To me he's suggesting that religions, all religions, create dogma, some of which, at least is, at best, leaps from some scripture.  When you said the LDS Church doesn't have the same problem he responds:

Quote

Seriously?  You don't think the Mormon church has dogma that are at best is a leap from some scripture including the BOM and POGP but are not based on any revelation from God? Every religion does it.  If people truly thought that everything the Mormon church teaches is true and comes from God and not infallible men, then I don't think so many in the church would be having a faith crisis.  It is always easier to see the errors in other interpretation of scripture in others.

I still read him as suggesting that the LDS Church and other churches create dogma and some of it can be said to be at best leaps from scriptural interpretation.  I think his example fits nicely. 

Ah well...I'm happy to drop it, because his point was not my point.  I just happen to find his point thoughtful and with merit. 

[california boy]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

CB's own words-"I was pointing out that even religions that don't rely solely on the Bible can not always validate dogma by other scriptures or modern revelation."

"You don't think the Mormon church has dogma that are at best is a leap from some scripture including the BOM and POGP but are not based on any revelation from God?"

How is the interpretation of scripture irrelevant?  All scripture not written originally in English is an interpretation for us.  How, for example, can someone claim that he refuses to discuss any scriptures in the bible concerning homosexuality or the Proclamation to the Family while he makes the claim that scriptures and revelation are silent on whether or not SSM should be performed in the temple?

I don't see those as reasonable parameters for the discussion.

Stemelbow gets exactly what I am talking about completely.  If you don't understand what I was saying then maybe you will understand what he is saying.

I also said this, which you didn't quote

Quote

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.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.

You can not provide either of those things because they don't exist.  I know you want to use the PoF  to support your claim but FIRST you need to show where church leaders have declared the PoF to be a revelation.  It is funny that the church member so desperately want the PoF to be a revelation that it is they themselves that declare it to be a revelation.  Why?  Because even the members realize that for something to be legitimately doctrine from God, it should be revealed by God.  God has yet to forbid gay marriage, so church leaders have taken that task upon themselves to forbid it.

 The problem with these discussions is that some on this board use their opinion that something is a revelation when the church has never claimed it to be one.  And then the discussion continues down a spiral that goes nowhere.  This is not a discussion about gay marriage.  This is a discussion about doctrine that is not supported by scripture or revelation. SSM is one of those doctrines. The church makes a leap that gay marriage is wrong in the same way as JW's make a leap that blood transfusions wrong.  They are both an interpretation by fallible men of something that is not specifically stated in the scriptures.  

And here is the point of all of this.  People DISAGREE with the guessing that church leaders sometime make.  They have their own interpretation of what the scriptures say.  Many on this very board view the church's guess of what those scriptures say is wrong.  Some have stayed anyway.  Some have left the church.  It is therefore a reason people leave organized religion.  The Mormon church included. I can't possibly see how you can not see that.  You surely have heard of people leaving over the church's position on gay marriage haven't you.  And you certainly can not provide a scripture or a revelation that has been declared by church leaders that prohibits gay marriage.  How can you be confused.  You want to talk about something you have no support for.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

How is the interpretation of scripture irrelevant?  All scripture not written originally in English is an interpretation for us.  

I want to talk about this thought specifically because I think it is a very important point.  There are MANY teachings of Christ and elsewhere in the scriptures that are perfectly clear.  Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not commit adultery.  Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  God has been pretty clear about a lot of things.  But organized religion is not content with what God has made clear.  So it has taken upon itself to clarify things that God has not made clear.  It is that dogma created by organized religion that people no longer accept.  They are not always rejecting God.  They are rejecting the teachings of men mingled with scripture.  Should one man's interpretation of a scripture have more authority than anothers?  Does the Holy Ghost speak to one person more clear than He does another?  Are we met to be sheep blindly following any person who claims to know more about God than another person?  Certainly you would agree with ALL of those statements when applied to religion outside of the Mormon church.  You would be the first to say that we should not follow the interpretations made by the pope, or Martin Luther or Calvin or any other past church leader.

This is the same conclusion many outside the church have made.  They are walking away from organized religion. They are walking away from the false interpretations that have been propped up by men and not by God.  They no longer believe that just because a person is declared a leader of a faith, that what he says comes from God.  

Now here is an interesting discussion point for all on this board.  Are they wrong to do so? Or should they stay in a religion whose dogma has been overcome with the teachings of men.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'd agree with CB in that any time one takes to interpreting anything, including scripture, one is forming dogma, or trying to. I find his example apt.  

Any reading is interpretation.  Words do not somehow transmit a specific meaning to our brains.  We choose how to understand/interpret them based on past experiences.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

CB's own words-"I was pointing out that even religions that don't rely solely on the Bible can not always validate dogma by other scriptures or modern revelation."

"You don't think the Mormon church has dogma that are at best is a leap from some scripture including the BOM and POGP but are not based on any revelation from God?"

How is the interpretation of scripture irrelevant?  All scripture not written originally in English is an interpretation for us.  How, for example, can someone claim that he refuses to discuss any scriptures in the bible concerning homosexuality or the Proclamation to the Family while he makes the claim that scriptures and revelation are silent on whether or not SSM should be performed in the temple?

I don't see those as reasonable parameters for the discussion.

All scripture is an interpretation at all times.  Different understandings can come from "Jesus wept" or "my father dwelt in a tent".

Just makes your point stronger imo.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

All scripture is an interpretation at all times.  Different understandings can come from "Jesus wept" or "my father dwelt in a tent".

There is a lot in the scriptures that are very clear.  I mentioned some in the post above.  What you are right about is that there are a lot of scriptures that are not clear.  Perhaps because God doesn't need them to be clear.  There is no reason to have dogma on "Jesus wept" or "My father lives in a tent".  The fact that organized religion feels the need to declare dogma on all scriptures may very well be a flaw in how we look at scripture.  Maybe God wants us to figure out some things for ourselves and not have someone tell us how we should confirm to their own personal beliefs.  We are all different.  We all have different needs.

[boblloyd91]

20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

He thought the same thing, whatever leads you to Christ. And something else, my brother as you know is in a rehab. I was thinking today I think the church is good for people like this guy and for people like my brother. They both need some structure to reign in theirselves and stay on the straight and narrow. 

I know I make jabs at the church, but if I'm being honest I wish sometimes my inactive children would all be married in the temple and active members. It seems that that kind of lifestyle is a safe way to go as far as life in general, and their kids.

I can't figure that Shawn fella out...I've seen a few shows where he feels the church is terrible, now he's agreeing with a guy who is staying in the church.

by the way I hope your brother is doing well. If you ever have any questions about the recovery process you can always pm me, as that's a big part of my day to day career.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Any reading is interpretation.  Words do not somehow transmit a specific meaning to our brains.  We choose how to understand/interpret them based on past experiences.

Agreed.

[bcuzbcuz]

 

I read the whole article. That's ten minutes of my life I'll never get back. What a waste.

The author, under his point 3 about how atheism destroys society. 

"For thousands of years, morality has been based on beliefs about human purpose, the immortality of the soul, and other transcendent truths—all beliefs that are religious in nature, as they cannot be scientifically evaluated. However, post-modern Atheism rejects all of these notions, in the long-term, for the same reason that it rejects religion—they cannot be studied or confirmed by scientific inquiry.

Instead, Atheism replaces the foundations of morality with what can be seen, heard, touched, or otherwise measured. Since this eliminates notions of God and the interplay between good and evil, we can stop looking outward to ask, “what do God’s laws or the Universe’s laws require of us?” And instead, we can begin looking inward and ask more fully than ever before, “wait, what do I want?”

Rather than morality being driven by belief in standards of right and wrong, good and evil, and other such dualisms, morality will eventually be driven solely by human desires, cravings, and impulses—as these are actually palpable. Simply put, society will be governed completely by what individuals think they want and need—as opposed to a sense of duty and obligation to some higher truth about good and evil or directives from Heaven."

The author has a very poor, if not totally non-existant, knowledge of human societies for the span of "thousands of years". "Morality based on "beliefs of human purpose"? Read a credible book about the Crusades or the Inquisition. Or The Holy Roman Empire, etc.

Atheism will, "rather than being driven by standards of right and wrong", be "driven solely by human desires, cravings and impulses"

And his proof of this is......... Maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hardly anyone leaves a religion for dogmatic or doctrinal reasons.  It nearly always has to do with one's comfort level and feelings of acceptance.  People enter, leave, or stay in a religious group (or any other group for that matter) because they like the group and enjoy the personal associations.  This extends to those who feel inspired one way or the other.  That millennials are leaving organized religion is merely a sign of the times -- the Zeitgeist -- which can change in oscillatory fashion from one generation to the next.  It doesn't tell us anything deeper than that.

If you want to understand the mechanics of this, read Eric Hoffer, The True Believer.

I know many people who have left the church because of doctrinal issues. It's a complicated issue and there are many reasons people do what they do. It is far too simplistic to suggest that most people leave for social reasons, not doctrinal/theological ones. The social structure of the church is very appealing for people. Many people who don't believe stay for the social reasons but I really haven't known any believing members who have left simply for social reasons. But I recognize that my personal experience with this is very limited and I imagine many people have done just that  and were later reactivated when the social situation changed.

I also feel that stating millenials are leaving as a "sign of the time" or the zeitgeist, really says nothing about the real motivations and dismisses their experience as an unavoidable fate.

[mfbukowski]

Finally got the article.  meh.

What this guy does not understand is that postmodernism is the only possible intellectual future for the church, and that is why those who leave, leave for atheism because we as a church have not yet figured that out.

In the 21st century, science rules, and (newsflash) we have no scientific evidence for God.  Those who think truth is only found through science and then conclude that God's existence cannot be "true" because it is not scientific are caught forever in a circular argument.  

Truth is science, God is not scientific, therefore God's existence is not true.  Perfect logic, but unfortunately circular.  Truth is defined in such a way as to preclude God's existence from the very beginning.

Using a postmodern definition of truth however negates the notion that the only truth is scientific truth.

Postmodernism teaches that truth is relational and contextual to a community and "what works" for a given community is "true" and that subjective experience and therefore "evidence" can be as "true" as objective (scientific) experience and therefore "evidence"

If we do not adopt a postmodern theory of truth, then God is dead, as Nietzsche pointed out.

It's ironic that Nietzsche founded postmodernism, thereby creating the solution to the problem he created in the first place.

The church is founded on the validity of spiritual experience, and yet the members insist that there is objective evidence for God, which contradicts the validity of spiritual experience.

THAT is why they leave, when they confront that quandary.   "No evidence for God, the resurrection, the Book of Mormon or Biblical theological proof?  OK then I guess atheism is the only answer"

No, that's not the only answer.   The answer is that subjective experience is just as valid as objective experience and postmodern truth verifies that.  Adopt postmodernism or it is all over.  THAT is the answer.

Figure it out, people.

Edited January 3, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Finally got the article.  meh.

What this guy does not understand is that postmodernism is the only possible intellectual future for the church, and that is why those who leave, leave for atheism because we as a church have not yet figured that out.

In the 21st century, science rules, and (newsflash) we have no scientific evidence for God.  Those who think truth is only found through science and then conclude that God's existence cannot be "true" because it is not scientific are caught forever in a circular argument.  

Truth is science, God is not scientific, therefore God's existence is not true.  Perfect logic, but unfortunately circular.  Truth is defined in such a way as to preclude God's existence from the very beginning.

Using a postmodern definition of truth however negates the notion that the only truth is scientific truth.

Postmodernism teaches that truth is relational and contextual to a community and "what works" for a given community is "true" and that subjective experience and therefore "evidence" can be as "true" as objective (scientific) experience and therefore "evidence"

If we do not adopt a postmodern theory of truth, then God is dead, as Nietzsche pointed out.

It's ironic that Nietzsche founded postmodernism, thereby creating the solution to the problem he created in the first place.

The church is founded on the validity of spiritual experience, and yet the members insist that there is objective evidence for God, which contradicts the validity of spiritual experience.

THAT is why they leave, when they confront that quandary.   "No evidence for God, the resurrection, the Book of Mormon or Biblical theological proof?  OK then I guess atheism is the only answer"

No, that's not the only answer.   The answer is that subjective experience is just as valid as objective experience and postmodern truth verifies that.  Adopt postmodernism or it is all over.  THAT is the answer.

Figure it out, people.

Amplifying it further:

"The Book of Mormon must be proven historical or it is not valid"

This is based on the notion that spiritual truth must be based on scientific "reality".   Adopt a postmodern view and this goes away

"Joseph was a fallen prophet due to (pick from list)"  

This is based on the idea that the ideas of a prophet derive directly from the mouth of God in order for those ideas to be "true".  Because God exists scientifically, his words also exist scientifically and are literally cut in stone as the tablets of Moses.   Sorry.  Time to grow up.  The prophets language is the language of men and are true within a context. The are profound truths of the spirit to be spiritually verified by the audience - or not.

Again, adopt a postmodern view and this problem goes away.

If we adopt a postmodern view of truth, every single "problem" of religion in general goes away.

The very idea of following the spirit IS a "postmodern" way of viewing reality- there is no objective evidence for what the spirit tells us.  

If it is possible for the spirit to testify of truth to us individually, that can only be considered "truth" with a postmodern view of truth.

The truth is  that if we do not adopt a relativistic view of truth, we are out of business.   Of course that includes the idea that relativistic truth theories are only relatively true.

Grow up and get over it.

[Bobbieaware]

Is there anyone here who clearly understands what Mfbukowski is saying in his last two posts? If so, could you please restate the points he makes in simpler, easier to understand terms so one doesn't have to be a student of philosophy to be able grasp the meaning of the ideas he's trying to convey.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Finally got the article.  meh.

What this guy does not understand is that postmodernism is the only possible intellectual future for the church, and that is why those who leave, leave for atheism because we as a church have not yet figured that out.

In the 21st century, science rules, and (newsflash) we have no scientific evidence for God.  Those who think truth is only found through science and then conclude that God's existence cannot be "true" because it is not scientific are caught forever in a circular argument.  

Truth is science, God is not scientific, therefore God's existence is not true.  Perfect logic, but unfortunately circular.  Truth is defined in such a way as to preclude God's existence from the very beginning.

Using a postmodern definition of truth however negates the notion that the only truth is scientific truth.

Postmodernism teaches that truth is relational and contextual to a community and "what works" for a given community is "true" and that subjective experience and therefore "evidence" can be as "true" as objective (scientific) experience and therefore "evidence"

If we do not adopt a postmodern theory of truth, then God is dead, as Nietzsche pointed out.

It's ironic that Nietzsche founded postmodernism, thereby creating the solution to the problem he created in the first place.

The church is founded on the validity of spiritual experience, and yet the members insist that there is objective evidence for God, which contradicts the validity of spiritual experience.

THAT is why they leave, when they confront that quandary.   "No evidence for God, the resurrection, the Book of Mormon or Biblical theological proof?  OK then I guess atheism is the only answer"

No, that's not the only answer.   The answer is that subjective experience is just as valid as objective experience and postmodern truth verifies that.  Adopt postmodernism or it is all over.  THAT is the answer.

Figure it out, people.

Yes, that certainly solves issues of historicity, brought about by Mormonism's long-lasting infatuation with American fundamentalism and its antecedents. On the other hand, postmodernist Mormonism must still deal with the issue of what happens when Mormonism doesn't work. If Mormonism is true for Jane because it works for her, it must be equally false for Jim when it no longer works for him. Do you think members of the church could ever wrap their heads around the notion that Mormonism is just as much subjectively true as it is subjectively false?

Maybe the biggest issue for Mormonism in the 21st century is how do we make it work (or "true") for more people? 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Yes, that certainly solves issues of historicity, brought about by Mormonism's long-lasting infatuation with American fundamentalism and its antecedents. On the other hand, postmodernist Mormonism must still deal with the issue of what happens when Mormonism doesn't work. If Mormonism is true for Jane because it works for her, it must be equally false for Jim when it no longer works for him. Do you think members of the church could ever wrap their heads around the notion that Mormonism is just as much subjectively true as it is subjectively false?

Maybe the biggest issue for Mormonism in the 21st century is how do we make it work (or "true") for more people? 

Many can many can't- it's not my fault.

"The kingdom of heaven is not of this world"- what else could that mean?   If it's not of this world, what world is it?  It is the world within us- and that means subjective.  VERY clearly

The way to describe it to those folks AND the way I actually see it, is that God teaches us individually as we need it

One could always say that "they aren't ready for the truth yet" and leave it at that.   IN FACT that is what we do anyway when we pray "Please lead the missionaries to those who are ready to hear the gospel"

Essentially that is exactly what is being said there- some are ready some are not.

So I really think that is what most Mormons tacitly believe anyway if they actually thought it through.

That way they get to think there IS one truth for all- which postmodernism does not rule out

All postmodernism would say to that is that it cannot be objectively known that there is "one truth for all".  That is included in the idea that even relativism is only relatively "correct".

And indeed that all fits perfectly in the belief that "on earth we walk by faith, seeing through a glass darkly".   THAT actually SAYS explicitly that we cannot know all about God in an objective way until "then we see him face to face"

So here we walk by faith and different paths lead to God.  If you are a drunk on skid row, the Salvation Army might be the "right" path to Christ for you- for a time.

Even we believe that the "church" as it is now constituted will not be necessary in the Celestial Kingdom.

What we have to know is that EVERY concept Mormonism teaches CAN BE SEEN in a postmodern and relative way- or someone has suggested an alternative way to see it by interpretation.   Even President Kimball speaking on absolute truth acknowledges that truth exists in it's own "sphere", per DC 93  https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=spencer kimball absolute truth

Alma 32 essentially says that religious truth is "what is sweet" to the individual- that is pretty clearly a "postmodern" notion of truth as relative to the subjective experience of individuals.

Alma 32 is incompatible with the idea of scientific objective truth as is 1st James, Moroni 10 4-5 and many other scriptures- including DC93

If God teaches individuals, what he teaches them is not scientific truth.   That is just as plain as it can be- we just need to carry that concept forward.

Alma 32 even applies to prophets right?   Then what they see as "sweet" may not be what we see as "sweet".  Unless we want to throw away logical consistency that is the inescapable conclusion.

Edited January 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Is there anyone here who clearly understands what Mfbukowski is saying in his last two posts? If so, could you please restate the points he makes in simpler, easier to understand terms so one doesn't have to be a student of philosophy to be able grasp the meaning of the ideas he's trying to convey.

Great question because I REALLY have to learn how to teach this better!  Thanks for asking.

This is it as simply as I can put it.

On this earth we cannot KNOW all there is to know about God. So for us- since I cannot know YOUR heart, I have to get my own testimony.   Suppose I do not get a testimony- no experience telling me the church is true.

Why was that?  YOU cannot tell me why- there is no OBEJECTIVE evidence you can show me.   You cannot put me on a "spirit meter" and diagnose my brain on the fact that I do not feel what you feel.   If I feel I must be another religion or NO religion- you have no tangible, physical THING you can pull out that says "HERE- THIS IS PROOF!  I have a whatsis scientifically verified to be TRUE that PROVES my church is TRUE!"

THAT is what atheists want BECAUSE they understand what TRUTH is differently than you do!!

YOU use the word differently than they do!   It is pretty much just semantics!  People have tried to define what "truth" MEANS for thousands of years and no one has ever defined it in a way which is NOT DEBATABLE

They get a fuzzy feeling maybe but they see no reason to call that "God" because it is "only a feeling" and FOR THEM fuzzy feelings- or even whoppers of a vision- could not be "TRUE" because it could be a hallucination etc.

What you DEFINE as "true" is NOT what they DEFINE as "true".   Same feelings perhaps, but you define them as true and they do not!

So how do you solve that?   They insist they are right- you insist you are right!!

BUT now you have to speak to an atheist- and this world IS atheist- which means you now have to be a missionary and talk to the world and persuade them that your faith is "true"!

But because you have read philosophy, you know that some philosophers say that subjective feelings can be "true"- that truth is relative and truth is what works, etc etc.

So think about that.

You can use YOUR definition of truth as being something "real" and "in the world" and "God's eternal word" OR you can communicate clearly to others the gospel message by agreeing that YOUR DEFINITION of truth is not THEIR definition of truth.

It is like they are speaking a different language- or what some would call "language game"- to define TRUTH.   It's just semantics!

Some people define it one way and others define it another way- and PHILOSOPHERS- people who are supposed to be smart about language and how we use it- cannot themselves agree on a definition of "truth"!

So let's stop worrying about defining what cannot be defined and stop using the word "truth" in these discussions and us some other descriptions we can agree on.

It's like the word "freedom".   For a republican, maybe the maximum "freedom" would be no government at all- you could do anything you want.

Then a progessive would say "HA!  THAT is ridiculous! THAT's not "freedom"- If I don't have any money- I can't do ANYTHING- we do not have equal freedom if we do not have equal incomes!"

So if truth means one thing to you and another to me, and we decide to skip worrying about the definition and get on with communication, we might admit that it means one thing to you and another to me and say that "truth is relative" at least when we are trying to communicate and look at definitions.

So who says truth CAN be a good feeling?   Alma 32 is one person.

Richard Rorty- an atheist is another. (and many others called "postmodernists", because modernists are those who follow "modern" philosophy which was popular in the 16 and 17 hundreds, which said that science was the only path to truth- note also that those dates roughly correspond to the rise of modern Protestantism, oddly)

So if we want to communicate with the Richard Rortys of this world, we could adopt their language so that we can.  

We might say "truth as a WORD is relative since we cannot define it but what Mormons mean by "truth" is found in Alma 32 and it means that it works well in my life, gives me a good feeling of fulfillment, and that helps us to all live in peace together" and just maybe the Richard Rortys of this world would say

"DANG! (these Rortys were from Utah!) Yeah- I get that!!   So reading the Book of Mormon helps you feel fulfilled, makes you happy and gives meaning to your life?   Cool!  Tell me more- but what about the historicity of the book?  I don't know if I can buy THAT- what's the evidence?"

And we might tell them:

"Well, there is some scientific evidence for it- but that is not what is important.  What is important is that it gives our lives a new way of seeing the world and a new way to define Christianity- which also is something which I see unlike other traditional Christians- want to talk about it some time??"

And maybe they say yes, maybe no, but we will have tried.

Did that help at all?

WE know what we mean by "true" but it is not what THEY mean by "true" at all- so we drop the word, acknowledge that others see it differently which makes their understanding different than ours and therefore makes "truth" a semantic problem, so we stop worrying about it and describe the benefits of the beliefs in our lives instead of arguing about the definition of a word which is undefinable.

That's about it in a nutshell- or two

[Bobbieaware]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Great question because I REALLY have to learn how to teach this better!  Thanks for asking.

This is it as simply as I can put it.

On this earth we cannot KNOW all there is to know about God. So for us- since I cannot know YOUR heart, I have to get my own testimony.   Suppose I do not get a testimony- no experience telling me the church is true.

Why was that?  YOU cannot tell me why- there is no OBEJECTIVE evidence you can show me.   You cannot put me on a "spirit meter" and diagnose my brain on the fact that I do not feel what you feel.   If I feel I must be another religion or NO religion- you have no tangible, physical THING you can pull out that says "HERE- THIS IS PROOF!  I have a whatsis scientifically verified to be TRUE that PROVES my church is TRUE!"

THAT is what atheists want BECAUSE they understand what TRUTH is differently than you do!!

YOU use the word differently than they do!   It is pretty much just semantics!  People have tried to define what "truth" MEANS for thousands of years and no one has ever defined it in a way which is NOT DEBATABLE

They get a fuzzy feeling maybe but they see no reason to call that "God" because it is "only a feeling" and FOR THEM fuzzy feelings- or even whoppers of a vision- could not be "TRUE" because it could be a hallucination etc.

What you DEFINE as "true" is NOT what they DEFINE as "true".   Same feelings perhaps, but you define them as true and they do not!

So how do you solve that?   They insist they are right- you insist you are right!!

BUT now you have to speak to an atheist- and this world IS atheist- which means you now have to be a missionary and talk to the world and persuade them that your faith is "true"!

But because you have read philosophy, you know that some philosophers say that subjective feelings can be "true"- that truth is relative and truth is what works, etc etc.

So think about that.

You can use YOUR definition of truth as being something "real" and "in the world" and "God's eternal word" OR you can communicate clearly to others the gospel message by agreeing that YOUR DEFINITION of truth is not THEIR definition of truth.

It is like they are speaking a different language- or what some would call "language game"- to define TRUTH.   It's just semantics!

Some people define it one way and others define it another way- and PHILOSOPHERS- people who are supposed to be smart about language and how we use it- cannot themselves agree on a definition of "truth"!

So let's stop worrying about defining what cannot be defined and stop using the word "truth" in these discussions and us some other descriptions we can agree on.

It's like the word "freedom".   For a republican, maybe the maximum "freedom" would be no government at all- you could do anything you want.

Then a progessive would say "HA!  THAT is ridiculous! THAT's not "freedom"- If I don't have any money- I can't do ANYTHING- we do not have equal freedom if we do not have equal incomes!"

So if truth means one thing to you and another to me, and we decide to skip worrying about the definition and get on with communication, we might admit that it means one thing to you and another to me and say that "truth is relative" at least when we are trying to communicate and look at definitions.

So who says truth CAN be a good feeling?   Alma 32 is one person.

Richard Rorty- an atheist is another. (and many others called "postmodernists", because modernists are those who follow "modern" philosophy which was popular in the 16 and 17 hundreds, which said that science was the only path to truth- note also that those dates roughly correspond to the rise of modern Protestantism, oddly)

So if we want to communicate with the Richard Rortys of this world, we could adopt their language so that we can.  

We might say "truth as a WORD is relative since we cannot define it but what Mormons mean by "truth" is found in Alma 32 and it means that it works well in my life, gives me a good feeling of fulfillment, and that helps us to all live in peace together" and just maybe the Richard Rortys of this world would say

"DANG! (these Rortys were from Utah!) Yeah- I get that!!   So reading the Book of Mormon helps you feel fulfilled, makes you happy and gives meaning to your life?   Cool!  Tell me more- but what about the historicity of the book?  I don't know if I can buy THAT- what's the evidence?"

And we might tell them:

"Well, there is some scientific evidence for it- but that is not what is important.  What is important is that it gives our lives a new way of seeing the world and a new way to define Christianity- which also is something which I see unlike other traditional Christians- want to talk about it some time??"

And maybe they say yes, maybe no, but we will have tried.

Did that help at all?

WE know what we mean by "true" but it is not what THEY mean by "true" at all- so we drop the word, acknowledge that others see it differently which makes their understanding different than ours and therefore makes "truth" a semantic problem, so we stop worrying about it and describe the benefits of the beliefs in our lives instead of arguing about the definition of a word which is undefinable.

That's about it in a nutshell- or two

Very helpful. I kind of understood what you said in the two posts I referred to, but this one solidifies it for me and I now understand. Thank you.

In light of your posts, I wonder why the prophet Joseph Smith says when things eventually get to the point where the world will hatefully reject the Restored Gospel and violently persecute and murder those who espouse it, he will then try to bring those who reject the Restored Gospel message to repentance, and to the TRUTH, by what the prophet called "the sermon of nature." And what is this semon of nature? It's the oft prophesied dreadful day of divine destruction when God will send forth mighty convulsions of nature designed to humble the rebellious and bring then to repentance and the TRUTH. Do you think God will be unwise if he actually resorts to such a crude and inelegant method to try to bring unbelieving atheists to his version of the TRUTH? Another way of phrasing the same question might be, "when it comes to bringing people to God's version of the  truth, does human sorrow, misery, agony  and desperation trump in effectiveness challenges issued by believers for atheists to engage in post-modern philosophical introspection?" Or is it that the sermon of nature will inspire much post-modern philosophical introspection? 😉

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I know many people who have left the church because of doctrinal issues. It's a complicated issue and there are many reasons people do what they do. It is far too simplistic to suggest that most people leave for social reasons, not doctrinal/theological ones. The social structure of the church is very appealing for people. Many people who don't believe stay for the social reasons but I really haven't known any believing members who have left simply for social reasons. But I recognize that my personal experience with this is very limited and I imagine many people have done just that  and were later reactivated when the social situation changed.

I also feel that stating millenials are leaving as a "sign of the time" or the zeitgeist, really says nothing about the real motivations and dismisses their experience as an unavoidable fate.

I am basing my comments on this matter directly on research which shows this to be consistently true.  Of course, there will always be exceptions (which prove the rule), but they are outliers. People just do not enter or leave a religion (or any organization) over doctrinal or dogmatic matters.  This is true for all religions and applies in all countries.  Indeed, most people who are socialized into a religion (by upbringing or conversion) tend to stay.

The notion of a "church of the month club" in the wonderful film "Sweet Charity" just doesn't apply to real life.  Most people just don't change religions.  Those who do change have personal reasons of social comfort, unless converting to the religion of a new spouse.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SbmaGAXlGQ .