Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

He re-wrote it and he took the revised version literally. That's literalism, albeit a novel approach to literalism. Joseph doesn't seem to have been very metaphorically minded in his views.

Absurd.   Like I said, it is all semantics.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Yes, but the atmosphere in our church meetings (particularly leadership meetings) isn't very conducive to that state of mind, IMO.

The entire point of meditation is to change the way you see things like meetings.

And of course it is evident you did not read the links

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

One man's maturity is another man's immaturity. As I've matured I've gotten way less orthodox in my views, and I see that as a spiritual maturation. But it's not as if there is an objective standard with which to measure spiritual maturity.

But apparently you are the definer of the standard.  

[rockpond]

On 1/21/2017 at 9:36 AM, mfbukowski said:

Lol

Yes since he said he did not want his church to be like Methodism, that is precisely what I think

Go back and read it a third time.

It even say that he wants people to believe whatever they like.

We all understand that Joseph was not a fan of creeds.  But that isn't what we were talking about. 

You claimed that many LDS' view of revelation (as being the words of the Lord) today is rooted in Protestant literalism.  I argued that the it was more likely rooted in the way Joseph gave us his revelations (see the D&C). 

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We all understand that Joseph was not a fan of creeds.  But that isn't what we were talking about. 

You claimed that many LDS' view of revelation (as being the words of the Lord) today is rooted in Protestant literalism.  I argued that the it was more likely rooted in the way Joseph gave us his revelations (see the D&C). 

Good summary.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Absurd.   Like I said, it is all semantics.

It's neither absurd nor is it just semantics. Joseph Smith was a literalist. I'm not sure why that would even be controversial. 

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But apparently you are the definer of the standard.  

No, not at all. Well, maybe for myself, but not not for anyone else!

[Gray]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The entire point of meditation is to change the way you see things like meetings.

I'm not sure that's actually true, but maybe that's the point for you. 

 

 

[pogi]

On 1/21/2017 at 7:37 AM, Gray said:

 I certainly don't believe that God literally speaks words to us.

I like how Elder Scott put it in the link that Robert F. Smith provided. He said:

"I bear witness that the Lord, through the Holy Ghost, can speak to your mind and heart. Sometimes the impressions are just general feelings. Sometimes the direction comes so clearly and so unmistakably that it can be written down like spiritual dictation."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng

That is my personal experience as well.  I frequently have impressions that are so clear and unmistakable that it feels as if the words I write are inspired, as if God is speaking them to my mind.  It doesn't really matter if God is speaking words to me, or if the words are my own linguistic translation and interpretation of the language of the spirit, because either way the words fall short of capturing the experience.  I do relate with Elder Scott's words in that it often feels like spiritual dictation.  I do feel as if the words I choose are often inspired by God.

On 1/21/2017 at 7:37 AM, Gray said:

I can only speak to my experience in church leadership meetings, and also my observations from those leaked videos. I think the way we conduct meetings sucks the spiritual life out of the room. Personally I can access "religious elevation" experiences pretty easily in other contexts.

Church leadership meetings will never reach the deeper spiritual states that can be achieved through private meditative prayer.  That is not their purpose.  They serve another vitally important function in the church.  Ideally, the participants in the meetings are prepared and guided by the spirit to where all are edified.  We are human however, and that is not always the case. My personal meditations are not always guided by the spirit either, but that is not reason to give up on the practice.  The same can be said for church leadership meetings.

On 1/21/2017 at 7:37 AM, Gray said:

As far as visionary experiences go, only a certain percentage of the population can get things like that with any regularity. I'm not one of them - I'd probably have to suffer a traumatic brain event.

I used to think the same way you do.  I was wrong.

Edited January 23, 2017 by pogi

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I like how Elder Scott put it in the link that Robert F. Smith provided. He said:

"I bear witness that the Lord, through the Holy Ghost, can speak to your mind and heart. Sometimes the impressions are just general feelings. Sometimes the direction comes so clearly and so unmistakably that it can be written down like spiritual dictation."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng

That is my personal experience as well.  I frequently have impressions that are so clear and unmistakable that it feels as if the words I write are inspired, as if God is speaking them to my mind.  It doesn't really matter if God is speaking words to me, or if the words are my own linguistic translation and interpretation of the language of the spirit, because either way the words fall short of capturing the experience.  I do relate with Elder Scott's words in that it often feels like spiritual dictation.  I do feel as if the words I choose are often inspired by God.

Church leadership meetings will never reach the deeper spiritual states that can be achieved through private meditative prayer.  That is not their purpose.  They serve another vitally important function in the church.  Ideally, the participants in the meetings are prepared and guided by the spirit to where all are edified.  We are human however, and that is not always the case. My personal meditations are not always guided by the spirit either, but that is not reason to give up on the practice.  The same can be said for church leadership meetings.

I used to think the same way you do.  I was wrong.

To help clarify my position, I should say I don't think God literally sends us messages of any kind, because I don't think of God as a being with a personality and thoughts. So when I say I don't think God communicates to us in words, I mean God doesn't literally communicate at all.

In the same way an artist or a musician experiences inspiration, we too can be inspired with valuable spiritual insights. In fact, spiritual impressions are very similar, in my experience, to the creative spark you experience in the arts. I happily call this revelation from God, but I don't believe God literally sends out communication in any form whatsoever. We are born with all the tools already to come to these spiritual insights ourselves. I understand that most here have quite a different model, but it comes down to the same thing in the end. 

As far as visions go, I believe they are hallucinations that can be interpreted, just like anything else, spiritually. Some people are prone to hallucinations, others are not. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Gray

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

To help clarify my position, I should say I don't think God literally sends us messages of any kind, because I don't think of God as a being with a personality and thoughts. So when I say I don't think God communicates to us in words, I mean God doesn't literally communicate at all.

Joseph B. Worthlin said, "First, I know as never before that there is a form of communication that transcends the power of words."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/the-language-of-the-spirit?lang=eng&_r=1

I am a second witness to Elder Worthlin's words.  I don't know what better word I could use to describe my interaction with God than communication or communion.  I have a deep and profound personal relationship with God based entirely on communication with him.  Trying to convince me that God does not literally communicate with me would be like trying to convince me that my wife does not communicate with me.  I actually find my communication with God to be much more effective than with my wife  And as pleasant as my wife is, I find God's personality to be even more pleasing. Why you not believe that God has attributes?

1 hour ago, Gray said:

In the same way an artist or a musician experiences inspiration, we too can be inspired with valuable spiritual insights. In fact, spiritual impressions are very similar, in my experience, to the creative spark you experience in the arts. I happily call this revelation from God, but I don't believe God literally sends out communication in any form whatsoever. We are born with all the tools already to come to these spiritual insights ourselves.

As a musician, I like your comparison and agree that spiritual impressions are very similar.  The difference is that I don't take credit for any inspiration of any kind.  I feels much more like communion with the divine than anything else.

Edited January 23, 2017 by pogi

[Gray]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Joseph B. Worthlin said, "First, I know as never before that there is a form of communication that transcends the power of words."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/the-language-of-the-spirit?lang=eng&_r=1

I am a second witness to Elder Worthlin's words.  I don't know what better word I could use to describe my interaction with God than communication or communion.  I have a deep and profound personal relationship with God based entirely on communication with him.  Trying to convince me that God does not literally communicate with me would be like trying to convince me that my wife does not communicate with me.  I actually find my communication with God to be much more effective than with my wife  And as pleasant as my wife is, I find God's personality to be even more pleasing. Why you not believe that God has attributes?

As a musician, I like your comparison and agree that spiritual impressions are very similar.  The difference is that I don't take credit for any inspiration of any kind.  I feels much more like communion with the divine than anything else.

Thanks for your thoughts, pogi!

I do believe God has attributes, I just don't anthropomorphize God. I can't square a person-like deity with my observations about the state of the universe and the nature of life. If the only choice were that and atheism, I'd have to be an atheist. 

So I don't believe God is a being - God instead IS being. God is the only thing that exists. In other words, God is existence itself - the source of life, love, being, and, wrapping things in a neat little bow, Aquinas' first cause too

In some ways, God as Existence itself is also the Über-God in Mormon theology, when you really think about it.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

As a musician, I like your comparison and agree that spiritual impressions are very similar.  The difference is that I don't take credit for any inspiration of any kind.  I feels much more like communion with the divine than anything else.

 

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

I do believe God has attributes, I just don't anthropomorphize God. I can't square a person-like deity with my observations about the state of the universe and the nature of life.

If by "anthropomorphize" you mean attributing human like attributes to non-human objects, then I don't anthropomorphize God either.  To do so assumes that God is not a man and that we are not divine.  I personally can't square a non-person-like deity with my observations and communion with God.  What doesn't square for you?

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

So I don't believe God is a being - God instead IS being. God is the only thing that exists. In other words, God is existence itself - the source of life, love, being, and, wrapping things in a neat little bow, Aquinas' first cause too

In some ways, God as Existence itself is also the Über-God in Mormon theology, when you really think about it.

I agree that in "some ways", God is existence itself, (as evidenced by the following scriptures in D&C 88) in that God is the power by which all things exist and abound.  Don't confuse the person of God with his light however.  It can be easy to do so.

Quote

 

 7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

 8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

 9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

 10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

 11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

 12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

 13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

 42 And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons;

 43 And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets.

 44 And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man.

 45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?

 47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

 48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.

 49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

 50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound (D&C 88).

 

 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

If by "anthropomorphize" you mean attributing human like attributes to non-human objects, then I don't anthropomorphize God either.  To do so assumes that God is not a man and that we are not divine.  I personally can't square a non-person-like deity with my observations and communion with God.  What doesn't square for you?

I would say the problem of evil, which is unsolvable until you drop a God who is able to intervene in the affairs of human beings. On a related note, I don't see any good evidence of conscious intervention in the running of the world. The state of the world as it exists seems consistent with a God who never intervenes. 

 

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree that in "some ways", God is existence itself, (as evidenced by the following scriptures in D&C 88) in that God is the power by which all things exist and abound.  Don't confuse the person of God with his light however.  It can be easy to do so.

 

Well, in Mormon theology we are all uncreated. God (Elohim) did not create existence, he did not create us, and he did not create morality. He simply "organizes" material that was already there, and has to obey rules he didn't create. So where did all this material come from? It always existed. So the God that Elohim serves is really existence itself, the source of being and goodness. And, given the fact that you don't need powerful human-like gods in order to create worlds (worlds emerge naturally in the cooling and condensing of gasses), it seems apparent that God is really a metaphor for us. The ultimate God behind the gods of myth is Existence itself. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I would say the problem of evil, which is unsolvable until you drop a God who is able to intervene in the affairs of human beings. On a related note, I don't see any good evidence of conscious intervention in the running of the world. The state of the world as it exists seems consistent with a God who never intervenes. 

 

Well, in Mormon theology we are all uncreated. God (Elohim) did not create existence, he did not create us, and he did not create morality. He simply "organizes" material that was already there, and has to obey rules he didn't create. So where did all this material come from? It always existed. So the God that Elohim serves is really existence itself, the source of being and goodness. And, given the fact that you don't need powerful human-like gods in order to create worlds (worlds emerge naturally in the cooling and condensing of gasses), it seems apparent that God is really a metaphor for us. The ultimate God behind the gods of myth is Existence itself. 

A pantheist.

If you believe in an impersonal God, then you lean to more of a naturalistic pantheism, but if you believe that there is a spiritual element to all of existence then you lean to more of a classical pantheism.  You seem to be some sort of hybrid between the two but with a Mormon twist.   

Here is what the New World Encycolpedia says about pantheism and the problem of evil:

Quote

The problem of evil, which is a problem for theism, is not a problem for pantheism in the same way, since pantheism rejects the theistic notion of God as omnipotent and perfectly good.

You are swapping the problem of a personal and perfectly good God which allows evil, with the problem of an impersonal and somewhat evil God.  I'm not sure you are any better off with the problem of evil, especially within a Mormon context.  Not to mention the problem that pantheism poses with individual free-will independent of existence (God).  Free-will is not independent of existence, and thus God is deterministic in pantheism. 

Help me understand what you believe exactly.  Are you saying that Elohim is existence (God), or that Elohim is simply the organizer of God (existence)?  Or both?  There are so many problems with this theory no matter how you look at it when you start to think about the implications. 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by pogi

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are swapping the problem of a personal and perfectly good God which allows evil, with the problem of an impersonal and somewhat evil God.  I'm not sure you are any better off with the problem of evil, especially within a Mormon context.

Clearly you and the author of the article do not know Mormonism.  May I suggest that you or the New World Encyclopedia walk into any adult Sunday School class and ask the classroom the question of evil.

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Clearly you and the author of the article do not know Mormonism.  May I suggest that you or the New World Encyclopedia walk into any adult Sunday School class and ask the classroom the question of evil.

Clearly you don't know what I am talking about, and are not following this thread very closely.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

A pantheist.

If you believe in an impersonal God, then you lean to more of a naturalistic pantheism, but if you believe that there is a spiritual element to all of existence then you lean to more of a classical pantheism.  You seem to be some sort of hybrid between the two but with a Mormon twist.   

I think naturalistic pantheism most closely describes my views. 

 

Quote

Here is what the New World Encycolpedia says about pantheism and the problem of evil:

You are swapping the problem of a personal and perfectly good God which allows evil, with the problem of an impersonal and somewhat evil God.  I'm not sure you are any better off with the problem of evil, especially within a Mormon context.  Not to mention the problem that pantheism poses with individual free-will independent of existence (God).  Free-will is not independent of existence, and thus God is deterministic in pantheism. 

What makes you think God would be evil in my belief system? God doesn't have will or intention. God doesn't have the power to stop bad things from happening to good people, or the desire to inflict pain or misery. 

I don't see that pantheism necessarily implies determinism. Either free will exists or it's an illusion. No one really knows, but I see no reason to think that free will is impacted either way because I choose to define God as the universe. The existence of the universe, after all, is not in question. This is a question of definitions, not a question of whether or not God exists (as I define the word). 

 

Quote

Help me understand what you believe exactly.  Are you saying that Elohim is existence (God), or that Elohim is simply the organizer of God (existence)?  Or both?  There are so many problems with this theory no matter how you look at it when you start to think about the implications. 

 

 

I think that existence is God. I don't think there are any literal celestial beings out there creating worlds or enforcing morality. All of that is metaphor. There is only one God, and God is the only thing that exists. I don't see any problems with this system at all (on the contrary, I see a lot of issues with both mainstream Christian theism and mainstream Mormon theism). But I'd be interested in hearing what problems you have identified. 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

On 1/23/2017 at 6:40 AM, Gray said:

It's neither absurd nor is it just semantics. Joseph Smith was a literalist. I'm not sure why that would even be controversial. 

No, not at all. Well, maybe for myself, but not not for anyone else!

From his point of view, he THOUGHT he was a literalist.  I will grant you that.  From anyone else's perspective, scriptural literalists do not re-write scripture at will.  "Sola scriptura" does not mean usually mean "scripture is anything I am inspired to write or think is wrong in scripture which I correct".   THAT is the assertion that is absurd - that scriptural literalists write their own scripture. THAT is an absurd definition of what a scriptural literalist is- "He who writes his own scripture"

Throwing around highly nuanced terms in this way, ignoring context, does not lend itself to communication.

In fact your whole argument is great evidence for the fact that Joseph was an honest man without guile who thought (correctly imo) that God spoke to him directly.

Literalists do not re-write scripture unless they themselves know they are prophets.

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think that existence is God. I don't think there are any literal celestial beings out there creating worlds or enforcing morality. All of that is metaphor. There is only one God, and God is the only thing that exists. I don't see any problems with this system at all (on the contrary, I see a lot of issues with both mainstream Christian theism and mainstream Mormon theism). But I'd be interested in hearing what problems you have identified. 

Is God arithmetic and ideas too, or don't they "exist"?  Do ideas about, say, unicorns "exist"?  Metaphors are ways we invent to speak about things symbolically.  How does talking about the traditional God symbolize the "real" God which is existence itself?

Do moral principles exist?

I am trying to figure out if for you human experience = God because "everything" we know about is human experience.

How does belief in this version of God enrich your life?  How is this different than atheism?

Edited January 24, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

From his point of view, he THOUGHT he was a literalist.  I will grant you that.  From anyone else's perspective, scriptural literalists do not re-write scripture at will.  "Sola scriptura" does not mean usually mean "scripture is anything I am inspired to write or think is wrong in scripture which I correct".   THAT is the assertion that is absurd - that scriptural literalists write their own scripture. THAT is an absurd definition of what a scriptural literalist is- "He who writes his own scripture"

Throwing around highly nuanced terms in this way, ignoring context, does not lend itself to communication.

In fact your whole argument is great evidence for the fact that Joseph was an honest man without guile who thought (correctly imo) that God spoke to him directly.

Literalists do not re-write scripture unless they themselves know they are prophets.

Literalists are people who interpret scripture literally, right?  I'm just saying, Joseph didn't seem to engage with scripture metaphorically. Yes he was different from the baptist preacher down the road because he WROTE scripture, but that doesn't make him something other than a literalist, does it? Are you saying there can't be literalists who are also prophets?

Literalism is a particular hermeneutical approach. I can't see any way to argue that literalism was not Joseph Smith's hermeneutical approach, at least based on the evidence I've seen. 

[Gray]

46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Is God arithmetic and ideas too, or don't they "exist"?  Do ideas about, say, unicorns "exist"?  Metaphors are ways we invent to speak about things symbolically.  How does talking about the traditional God symbolize the "real" God which is existence itself?

 

Yes, metaphors exist. The idea of unicorns exist. I'm fine with creator Gods as metaphor, same as you. But not everyone takes it metaphorically. I think the traditional God is a metaphor for a lot of things - for our fathers, for us, for nature, for our ideas about mercy and justice. 

 

 

Quote

Do moral principles exist?

Indeed they do, in the abstract. I'm also fine with abstract Gods as well. I don't claim that my own model has any sort of primacy or supremacy. My model works for me. 

 

Quote

I am trying to figure out if for you human experience = God because "everything" we know about is human experience.

How does belief in this version of God enrich your life?  How is this different than atheism?

God, in my belief, goes beyond the things we know about and experience. Everything that exists is God, so that means there are aspects to God that we as humans don't understand or experience directly.

This theology enriches my life by making everything that exists sacred. Sacredness is everywhere. God is everywhere. Existence is pervaded by divinity. It's hard to experience that feeling everywhere, due to the way certain environments affect us, but it brings the experience of entering the Celestial room in the temple into everyday life. Going on a walk is like going to the temple.

There is no other-ness to God. I think it emphasizes human dignity and value by making each of us a part of the divine. Mormonism of course does that as well, but in a different way. 

It also makes me responsible for making sound moral judgments. I don't defer my moral compass to anyone. It is up to me to discern good from evil based on sound moral principles. I feel that this is a growth opportunity not afforded to those who see God as someone who commands and controls. 

It's different from atheism because there is worship and spirituality. As I see it, atheism is simply a reaction to traditional theism. Atheism is the mirror image of traditional theism, but pantheism is quite unlike either traditional theism or atheism. 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

Yes, metaphors exist. The idea of unicorns exist. I'm fine with creator Gods as metaphor, same as you. But not everyone takes it metaphorically. I think the traditional God is a metaphor for a lot of things - for our fathers, for us, for nature, for our ideas about mercy and justice. 

 

 

Indeed they do, in the abstract. I'm also fine with abstract Gods as well. I don't claim that my own model has any sort of primacy or supremacy. My model works for me. 

 

God, in my belief, goes beyond the things we know about and experience. Everything that exists is God, so that means there are aspects to God that we as humans don't understand or experience directly.

This theology enriches my life by making everything that exists sacred. Sacredness is everywhere. God is everywhere. Existence is pervaded by divinity. It's hard to experience that feeling everywhere, due to the way certain environments affect us, but it brings the experience of entering the Celestial room in the temple into everyday life. Going on a walk is like going to the temple.

There is no other-ness to God. I think it emphasizes human dignity and value by making each of us a part of the divine. Mormonism of course does that as well, but in a different way. 

It also makes me responsible for making sound moral judgments. I don't defer my moral compass to anyone. It is up to me to discern good from evil based on sound moral principles. I feel that this is a growth opportunity not afforded to those who see God as someone who commands and controls. 

It's different from atheism because there is worship and spirituality. As I see it, atheism is simply a reaction to traditional theism. Atheism is the mirror image of traditional theism, but pantheism is quite unlike either traditional theism or atheism. 

 

Ok, got it thanks.

Great metaphors and quite poetic.

[Teancum]

On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 4:10 PM, mfbukowski said:

Absurd.   Like I said, it is all semantics.

Hi Mark

I have been very busy. Don't know if you saw that I read the Faulconer paper.  I actually understood a good part of it though I am not sure it is sinking in. I still need to read up on the other links you provided.  Just letting you know.

[Teancum]

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 2:26 PM, rockpond said:

Too far off the rails.

Have a good day.

So for Robert and so many others here....none of this matters......