Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Sorry, should have been clearer. I was more trying to explain my view here not criticize you has having mentioned those other groups.

Right my point is that the excuse is just that: an excuse not the cause.

But most people aren't platonists. Truth can be explicated without appeal to timeless platonic forms.

Claims about "objective reality" end up determining claims about future experience. To the degree they make accurate predictions they are more apt to be correct. While I've not read all the posts in this thread, the arguments you've been making more or less appear to largely neglect that predictive power.

Since Peirce thought there was truth and had an extensive theory about it I think he would find a practical difference. (grin) He clearly thought truth and fallibilism were compatible. The SEP has a reasonably good discussion of this although it avoids some of the nuance of his mature phase.

 

Thanks. Excellent points will respond later.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Who said anything about communism or atheists?  I am talking about morality.  A criminal who uses his "God given brain" doesn't make him more moral, it just makes him a better criminal.  That is what I meant by "the most dangerous people".  My point is that using your brain doesn't make you more moral as you claim.  Morality is primarily found in the subjective feelings of our conscience.  Criminals often feel remorse for their actions, so it is not always impossible to tell when someone is listening to or ignoring their conscience.  Have you never felt remorse? 

Where is your objective measure for morality?

I never claimed an objective measure for morality.  Morality is a subjective determination influenced by our knowledge and culture.  Your earlier comment sounded like you'd prefer some ephemeral gut instinct as a determiner for morality, rather than careful rational thought and consideration.  I already assume that you can't separate a person's intellectual experience from their emotional one, I don't believe in a duality. 

Ideally decisions about morality should be tested, tried and carefully considered, gathering multiple view points, doing research, considering the ideas of others, understanding history, trying to empathize with different points of view, and lastly considering our emotional (spiritual) state is all part of this process.  

Unfortunately what I see in Mormons sometimes, and this is what I got from your comment, was a desire to simply pray and then follow your instinct.  This kind of decision making isn't supported by the gospel, or by common sense in my opinion, yet is is a common method I hear about from fellow members.  People don't want to put in the time and research, and they end up making decisions based on a feeling that is likely nothing more than a person's initial reaction to circumstances that are presented.  This kind of follow your gut decision making is very suspect.  

[Meadowchik]

54 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That is your choice. I am merely pointing out that rejecting priesthood authority because of the faults of men is a mistake, since all men besides Yeshua are faulty. You cannot find any valid baptism then. I suppose you are saying you have amen'ed the priesthood of Joseph Smith. Well, my response is the Lord did remove various aspects of his priesthood power during his tenure. For instance his power to translate was removed for a time, and I personally believe he lost the privilege of the Urim and Thummim at that time. Do I believe he understood the principles of polygamy perfectly? Not as reported I don't. There are other things he clearly did not understand perfectly. I am merely pointing out his imperfections clearly do not invalidate the Church. If the Book of Mormon is true, and the D&C are true, then the Church does represent the house of our Lord - with all its imperfect members. I guess what I am saying is given the propensity of people to give inaccurate representations of history either inadvertantly or on purpose, like we see in LDS Church history from critics, how can you be so sure that you have sufficient valid evidence to Amen the priesthood of Joseph Smith, and is that even for us to do, or is that for the Lord to do?

It is not a mistake to amen a man's priesthood when he promises salvation to a teenager, for her and her family, if she marries him. That is an abuse of power, it is doctrinally unsound, it is manipulative and cruel in any time period.

It is for the Lord to judge Joseph's eternal state, but it is for the individual to study the legitimacy of Joseph's and the church's claims,  the duty even, before deciding to swear allegiance to them. Indeed, if the individual swears allegiance to a false representative of Christ, then they are putting distance between themselves and the Savior.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Not if Christ wants us to accept more.

If Christ wants us to accept more than what Christ already offers as recorded in the New Testament, we might have a number of options. And those options need not be limited to an existing institution.

 

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It is not a mistake to amen a man's priesthood when he promises salvation to a teenager, for her and her family, if she marries him. That is an abuse of power, it is doctrinally unsound, it is manipulative and cruel in any time period.

It is for the Lord to judge Joseph's eternal state, but it is for the individual to study the legitimacy of Joseph's and the church's claims,  the duty even, before deciding to swear allegiance to them. Indeed, if the individual swears allegiance to a false representative of Christ, then they are putting distance between themselves and the Savior.

But it may be a mistake to believe such stories by the time they get through the eyes of a teenager, through sometimes 2 other people, and through the pen of a church critic usually about 50 years or more after his death. For instance was Joseph Smith promising salvation or was he promising that she could attain the celestial kingdom? There is tons of conflicting evidence, and most of it is hearsay - not through eye witnesses. Much of the early so called evidence from Church critics is demonstrably false or pretty obviously prejudiced, from authors such as Eber Howe and Pomeroy Tucker. I cannot stop you from believing everything written about Joseph Smith, but I certainly think that is unwise given the propensity of people giving inaccurate history concerning him. If you received a witness regarding the Book of Mormon, do you not trust it? May I suggest considering the parable of the sower of the seed?

Edited April 12, 2017 by RevTestament

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I have the history provided and my experience - like basically everyone else. However, I would assert that I do have an advantage of the Lord speaking to me. Still, that is "unprovable" - like it is for others who have heard and had visions, etc. Nevertheless, it is very real to me. My image of what Jesus is, is formed by the scriptures which I admit that I interpret differently from everyone else I know. As for them being stories written by people who lived 2-3 generations after Jesus, that is an interpretation I disagree with. I have taken a NT course complete with textual analysis and modern critical methodology - have you? The opinion that the gospels were written well after Jesus is based upon disbelief that He knew the future. All He had to know is what Daniel 9 said about Him, and that Jerusalem would be destroyed. Although He knew more. I mostly reject the 2000 years of theological evolution and invention. It is not scripturally based, and I believe the Lord has taught me otherwise.

First, let me say that I value your personal experiences and acknowledge that they are real, even if not necessarily reflective of historical events.  Also, I haven't taken any NT courses on biblical criticism.  However, I have read quite a few books.  As with any subject, there will never be 100% unanimity in the scholarly world. Are you asserting that your view of the NT is in the majority of opinion by major NT scholarship?  From what I've read about the NT dating of the books, most scholars seem to support the kind of dating that I alluded to above.  Fine if you disagree with them, but I think its important to acknowledge whenever your views fall outside mainstream biblical scholarship.  

36 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I would proffer that following Yeshua is our source of light. The mindfulness practice you are speaking of sounds like you are speaking of Buddhism. I proffer the eight-fold path can be found pretty much straight from scripture. Who is to say that while Buddha was wandering around searching for truth outside of Hinduism that he didn't run across the Hebrew scriptures from Hebrew merchants spread throughout the Persian-Median domain after Assyria hauled them there? And that the alternative truth you believe you have found isn't a result of the light the Lord put in the world through His prophets? I am not against meditation, and in fact I posit that you should meditate on the first seven steps of the path, and the Tanakh and see if what I am saying is not true.

I'm not so much interested in who originated the ideas of mindfulness, meditation, prayer, etc.  I'm willing to acknowledge that these ideas came from a divine source.  I think the problem comes with the exclusivity claim connecting inspired practices with a particular view of God.  I just can't see how that is a value add.  The practice is what I get value from, not believing that this practice is authorized by a particular construct of what group of people originally invented the practice.  

40 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yes, and I believe the Church has fallen into a trap of perhaps not accepting truth wherever it may come from because so many unquestioningly follow whatever the leader says. I don't believe anyone has exclusive rights to interpret scripture. That certainly has led to a lot of evil within Christianity. I believe if an interpretation is true, the Spirit will confirm it to others. However, I will defend Christ to the death. And I am saddened that you are saddened about that, if you are. I will not follow Muhammed for example. Did you know that Sharia means "the path?" I believe Christ is the Way, and will defend that. If you want to have a discussion about Buddhism I will be happy to discuss its faults. Primarily I think his emphasis on escaping suffering is too great. If you follow the prescription you will also escape joy. You cannot know one without the other. I perceive other faults as well, such as the belief in the god-like creatures in the hereafter. And what gave Buddha this revelation if there is no God? 

So I am not sure if I understand what you mean when you say "defensive" but I have no shame in defending Christ. Where I see faults in the Church, I freely speak about them, and have done so since I appeared on this board. I don't believe anyone can accuse me of being PC in my defense of the Church. I call it like I see it.

Thanks for your comments about accepting truth, I completely agree and its nice to see you are thoughtful and see some of the same elements that can be damaging with exclusivity claims.

On defending religion.  I don't believe in a God that cares about humans defending a particular flavor of religious identity.  What can possibly be the purpose in this kind of a test of belief?  Why would a deity care about such trivial things.  I can't imagine the point.  If I were a deity, I would care about how my creations treat each other, not how well they sell a particular worship practice.  The only worship I would care about is the worship of practical caring and love and responsibility for all life.  I can't imagine a deity being concerned with wins and losses between different faith communities.  I don't think Christ wants you to defend him to the death.  I think Christ would want you to defend life, to love, and to do good.  A great book I read recently, I think you would enjoy it, he's falls on the thoughtful and somewhat conservative side of things in Christian thought. 

https://www.amazon.com/Sin-Certainty-Desires-Correct-Beliefs/dp/0062272098/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492022893&sr=1-3&keywords=peter+enns

He also did a podcast with the Maxwell Institute talking about his book last year, in case you want a preview to his book.  

http://mi.byu.edu/mip-54-enns/

 

[SmileyMcGee]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Okay, let's explore this scenario, because I can relate to both person A and person B.

So a person prays and feels that The BoM is from God and Joseph is a prophet.  This person could be operating in a framework where they have identified subjective premises and subjective experiences, apart from objective observations.  For instance, objectively, they know that according to the church Joseph practiced polygamy. They read the proclamations on it in the D&C, and they conclude that if they operate from the subjective premise that the D&C is true, then they can reasonably say that Joseph could have been being obedient to god's law at that time.  So, as you can see, this is a melange of subjective belief and objective observations. Yet, again, this individual knows which pieces are which, which is subjective and which is objective.

In my case, I was aware that, objectively, the historical record could support the claim that Joseph did some morally questionable things involving polygamy. Objectively, I tried to see if there was an objective way to fit together the subjective pieces of my testimony with objective observations. Eventually and over time, I had constructed rational bridges to fit those pieces together:  1)maybe it's not true, he did not practice polygamy, then 2)yes he did practive polygamy but for good reason, then 3)yes, he did practice polygamy and some shady things were likely going on there.  With this last one, I had one more rational bridge available.  I reminded myself of my own subjectivity.  I reminded myself that I could not know that being involved in shady dealings involving polygamy would preclude Jospeh from a prophetic station. Indeed, God works his miracles through flawed humanity, that's one of the beauties of the gospel which is so inspiring and which is so patterned throughout life's objective observation: people doing work highly benefitcial to humankind despite perhaps doing horrible things around the same time.  So, I held my testimony of Joseph as prophet together with this possibility, that Joseph might have been God's prophet even if he did bad things around the same time.

So, if we examine this rational bridge closely, it involved the divine nature of God and the human nature of mankind, and that the divine can work within a flawed person.

Then, for me, experience happened.  Over the course of a few years, I trusted an individual who ended up lying on a continual basis, about major things, about facts that hurt my family, and doing so deliberately.  When problems with this individual began, I was accepting and understanding.  I assumed that perhaps I had contributed to the problem and I did what I could do, beyond what I was legally and morally obligated to do, to rectify the problem and to make a show of good faith and genuine caring.  I saw his difficult nature as understable. If you would have asked me at this point if, for instance, he could have received revelation and inspiration to, say, teach Sunday School, I would have said it might be possible.  But, as I indicated, things worsened from a difficult relationship to the lying I talked about, eventually to violence on his part and then lying about that. At this point, if you would have asked me if he could have been disposed to receive revelation and inspiration to teach Sunday School, I would say an adament, convicted "no." Why was this a conviction? It is a conviction because, within the framework of the gospel, there can exist a point at which the Spirit departs from a man.  This is well supported by scripture. And this man, a member of the ward, had explicitly attempted to invoke God to pronounce judgments upon us, in ways that even though he had no priesthood authority over us, he did over his family.  And he was doing things and saying things that directly harmed his family because of how it affected our relationship. According to scripture, the priesthood power of this man in this thing for his family was "Amened."

This is when the epiphany came for me about Joseph.  I won't go into much more detail except to say that, in my experience described above, I learned that there will be a threshold in any individual, when the spirit and priesthood authority can depart.  Although this is explicitly described in LDS scripture, it took me seeing this dynamic play out for me to know it and see how it worked.

"Subjectivity within objectivity" is not necessarily some mishmash of observations and decisions.  It can very well be an aware, intentional construction of decisions and observations, knowing where one's subjective premises are, how they extend, what rational bridges they persuade us to invoke in order to connect to objective observation.  So, as person A, I was being objective.  As person B, I was being objective, but with more information. 

One way to look at it is, we are all necessarily inescapably subjective.  But that does not mean we cannot be objective, too. Furthermore, there is a difference between holding on to a subjective premise when the information does not support it, and that of holding onto a subjective premise when the information strongly contradicts it. 

The way to do that is to identify the subjective pieces and the objective pieces.  Knowing your testimony at age 18 was based on a strong warm feeling of light washing over your entire being, that it was your experience and a subjective one, that is healthy.  Treating that experience, however, as if it has weight and authority over another person or that they should simply reproduce that experience for themselves is one example of allowing subjectivity to run rampant and out of bounds. On the other hand, showing a person that the Book of Mormon encourages and invites spiritual experiences in Moroni 10:5 is an objective claim. You can open the book and show someone else.  You can cite the scripture here on MD&D and they can look it up too, by following the correct chapter and verse.  

Hopefully my description has helped you see what I mean by being objective within subjectivity. 

What a detailed response! This is very helpful for me to understand your logical framework. I think it's worth noting that my aim is not to discredit the beliefs you have but to challenge what you are claiming about those beliefs or how you acquired them.  This may sound like the same thing but I consider them to be very different. 

i would like a little more clarification though. You mentioned that you objectively knew that a historical record could  show that JS did some morally questionable things. I was wondering if you could define objective and explain how you came to know something about a historical record in an objective manner. I ask because it sounds to me like you are equating objectivity with attempting to see things from different views, and I have a tough time with that definition of objectivity.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I never claimed an objective measure for morality.  Morality is a subjective determination influenced by our knowledge and culture.  Your earlier comment sounded like you'd prefer some ephemeral gut instinct as a determiner for morality, rather than careful rational thought and consideration.  I already assume that you can't separate a person's intellectual experience from their emotional one, I don't believe in a duality. 

Ideally decisions about morality should be tested, tried and carefully considered, gathering multiple view points, doing research, considering the ideas of others, understanding history, trying to empathize with different points of view, and lastly considering our emotional (spiritual) state is all part of this process.  

Unfortunately what I see in Mormons sometimes, and this is what I got from your comment, was a desire to simply pray and then follow your instinct.  This kind of decision making isn't supported by the gospel, or by common sense in my opinion, yet is is a common method I hear about from fellow members.  People don't want to put in the time and research, and they end up making decisions based on a feeling that is likely nothing more than a person's initial reaction to circumstances that are presented.  This kind of follow your gut decision making is very suspect.  

It just seems strange to me that you would question the measuring stick of prayer when there is no objective measure. 

I don't disagree with you that we need to study things out in our mind, but ultimately it is the subjective feelings of our conscience that guide us after giving much thought to it.  Because there is no objective measure, rationality can only take you so far.  Ultimately you have to rely on your gut feelings.  

Quote

8.  But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

Perhaps you are falsely assuming that because we mention prayer as a measure for morality, that we leave out the prerequisites to effective prayer which entails "studying things out in your mind". 

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by pogi

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

First, let me say that I value your personal experiences and acknowledge that they are real, even if not necessarily reflective of historical events.  Also, I haven't taken any NT courses on biblical criticism.  However, I have read quite a few books.  As with any subject, there will never be 100% unanimity in the scholarly world. Are you asserting that your view of the NT is in the majority of opinion by major NT scholarship?  From what I've read about the NT dating of the books, most scholars seem to support the kind of dating that I alluded to above.  Fine if you disagree with them, but I think its important to acknowledge whenever your views fall outside mainstream biblical scholarship.  

I thought I made it pretty clear I disagree with the scholars and why. I don't really know how much a majority they are as compared to Christian scholars so don't address that point. I am merely saying one of the main criterion used, if not the main one is that Jesus predicted the complete and utter destruction of the temple. Most textual scholars merely dismiss that because they conclude he couldn't have known. To me that is not a very good reason to date the gospels later. Even if there was a Q document used to write Mark and Luke, for instance, who cares? Luke didn't claim to be an eye witness apostle. He was writing based on what he heard the apostles say, and perhaps already wrote.

Quote

I'm not so much interested in who originated the ideas of mindfulness, meditation, prayer, etc.  I'm willing to acknowledge that these ideas came from a divine source.  I think the problem comes with the exclusivity claim connecting inspired practices with a particular view of God.  I just can't see how that is a value add.  The practice is what I get value from, not believing that this practice is authorized by a particular construct of what group of people originally invented the practice.

 Thanks for your comments about accepting truth, I completely agree and its nice to see you are thoughtful and see some of the same elements that can be damaging with exclusivity claims.

Well, I don't believe the Church says it has an exclusivity claim as to the nature of God. I believe men and women have been trying to figure out God for ages, but that their best chance of doing that is through Christ. I too don't believe I should believe like some particular group. I believe I should believe in God, how He witnesses of Himself in scripture, through His Son, and how His Son reveals Him. I doubt I believe exactly like anyone else in the Church. But I certainly do believe the Church has the basics right. Do I believe this earth was so honored that Christ's atonement here atoned for all the rest of the worlds before and after? No. I believe that is a misunderstanding of the gospel. Again, I don't believe anyone has the right of private interpretation of scripture, and I don't believe it just because some apostle said it or wrote it in a book.

Quote

On defending religion.  I don't believe in a God that cares about humans defending a particular flavor of religious identity.  What can possibly be the purpose in this kind of a test of belief?  Why would a deity care about such trivial things.  I can't imagine the point.  If I were a deity, I would care about how my creations treat each other, not how well they sell a particular worship practice.  The only worship I would care about is the worship of practical caring and love and responsibility for all life.  I can't imagine a deity being concerned with wins and losses between different faith communities.  I don't think Christ wants you to defend him to the death.  I think Christ would want you to defend life, to love, and to do good.  A great book I read recently, I think you would enjoy it, he's falls on the thoughtful and somewhat conservative side of things in Christian thought. 

I certainly do believe Christ expects me to defend Him to the death. Most of the time it involves defending Him to life and love, and that is beautiful. However, there are plenty who have died for Him, and continue to do so. 

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I don't believe ISIS cares what flavor of Christianity you are, if you are Christian you are subject to death or slavery if you won't pay the jizyah. Islam wants you to deny the Son. That is a flavor of religion my friend. Sometimes you have to choose what God you will serve.

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

But it may be a mistake to believe such stories by the time they get through the eyes of a teenager, through sometimes 2 other people, and through the pen of a church critic usually about 50 years or more after his death. For instance was Joseph Smith promising salvation or was he promising that she could attain the celestial kingdom? There is tons of conflicting evidence, and most of it is hearsay - not through eye witnesses. Much of the early so called evidence from Church critics is demonstrably false or pretty obviously prejudiced, from authors such as Eber Howe and Pomeroy Tucker. I cannot stop you from believing everything written about Joseph Smith, but I certainly think that is unwise given the propensity of people giving inaccurate history concerning him. If you received a witness regarding the Book of Mormon, do you not trust it? May I suggest considering the parable of the sower of the seed?

This is from the direct testimony Helen gave to her children on her deathbed, still a believer, hoping to be worthy of the reward Joseph promised her:

Salt Lake City
March 30t h 1881

My great Grandfather Kimball and his brother came from England and both assisted in gaining the Independence of the United States—My father was the son of Solomon Farnham Kimball, who was born in the State of Masachusets in the year 1770. He married Anna Spaulding, who was born in New Hampshire, in the town of Plainsfield, on the banks of the Connecticut river, She was the dau daughter of David and Speedy Spaulding—My father Heber Chase Kimball was born June 14t h 1801. in the town of Sheldon, Franklin Co. Vermont. Nov 27t h1822. He married Vilate, daughter of Roswell and Susannah Murray. My mother was born in Florada, Montgomery Co. New York June 1s t1806. She bore ten children. Their first child was a daughter who died when ten months old. I was their fourth child born in Mendon Monroe Co. N. Y. August 22n d 1828. & the last daughter my mother ever bore. Their fifth child, a son, was born & died in Mendon just previous to their hearing this Gospel preached, which they recieved & gathered up to Kirtland Ohio in the fall of 1833. I was then five years old, & William, my eldest brother, was over seven. I was baptized by Uncle Brigham Young in a branch of the Chagrin river, my father cutting the ice for that purpose. He & Brigham Young then belonged to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. Years passed away and we were living in the City of Nauvoo. Just previous to my father’s starting upon his last mission but one, to the Eastern States, he taught me the principle [p. 1] of Celestial marriage, & having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter: how cruel this seamed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched untill they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife & she thought she had made sufficient sacrafise, but the Lord required more. I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of [p. 1] Celestial marrage-after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.

This promise was so great that I will-ingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart—when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied “If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.” She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me.

I thought through this life my time will be my own
The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone,
No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free,
And as the past hath been the future still will be.
To my guileless heart all free from worldly care
And full of blissful hopes—and youthful visions rare
The world seamed bright the thret’ning clouds were kept
From sight, and all looked fair but pitying angels wept.
They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold.
And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled,
Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise,
Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price;
Thy happy dreems all o’er thou’rt doom’d alas to be
Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny,
And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys
Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes,
And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart,
Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot;
But could’st thou see the future & view that glorious crown,
Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn, [p. 2]
Pure and exalted was thy father’s aim, he saw
A glory in obeying this high celestial law,
For to thousands who’ve died without the light
I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright.
I’d been taught to receive the Prophet of God
And receive every word as the word of the Lord.
But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth,
I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth.

Two years after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum I loved and married your father, Horace Kimball Whitney, eldest son of Bishop Newel K. and Elizabeth Ann Whitney. He stood proxy for Joseph & I stood for Elizabeth Sikes. We were sealed in the Nauvoo Temple over the alter on the 3d of Feb. 1846. & we soon after crossed the

Mississipi river on the way to these Rocky Mountains. Since coming here I have given him Lucy B. Kimball & Mary Cravath to wife. By him I have borne eleven children, who I hoped to see crowned in the Celestial Kingdom. We have lived happily together for over 35 years & still we are spared as monuments of God’s mercy. I have long since learned to leave all with Him, who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to theProphet ofGod will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises

Now, my children, I ask Him to bless and preserve these lines that my children & my grandchildren & their children’s children may read them & may they all lives so as to accomplish they designs of our Maker

Before they have broken this seal the writer of these few lines will most likely have passed onto another stage of action, but I shall live until I have finished my Earthly mission and rejoice in the day of salvation & may all my loved ones enjoy these blessings is the prayer of youraffectionate mother. Helen Mar Kimball SmithWhitney.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-view-helen-mar-whitneys-reminiscences-early-church-history/11-appendix-one

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This is from the direct testimony Helen gave to her children on her deathbed, still a believer, hoping to be worthy of the reward Joseph promised her:

Salt Lake City
March 30t h 1881

My great Grandfather Kimball and his brother came from England and both assisted in gaining the Independence of the United States—My father was the son of Solomon Farnham Kimball, who was born in the State of Masachusets in the year 1770. He married Anna Spaulding, who was born in New Hampshire, in the town of Plainsfield, on the banks of the Connecticut river, She was the dau daughter of David and Speedy Spaulding—My father Heber Chase Kimball was born June 14t h 1801. in the town of Sheldon, Franklin Co. Vermont. Nov 27t h1822. He married Vilate, daughter of Roswell and Susannah Murray. My mother was born in Florada, Montgomery Co. New York June 1s t1806. She bore ten children. Their first child was a daughter who died when ten months old. I was their fourth child born in Mendon Monroe Co. N. Y. August 22n d 1828. & the last daughter my mother ever bore. Their fifth child, a son, was born & died in Mendon just previous to their hearing this Gospel preached, which they recieved & gathered up to Kirtland Ohio in the fall of 1833. I was then five years old, & William, my eldest brother, was over seven. I was baptized by Uncle Brigham Young in a branch of the Chagrin river, my father cutting the ice for that purpose. He & Brigham Young then belonged to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. Years passed away and we were living in the City of Nauvoo. Just previous to my father’s starting upon his last mission but one, to the Eastern States, he taught me the principle [p. 1] of Celestial marriage, & having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter: how cruel this seamed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched untill they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife & she thought she had made sufficient sacrafise, but the Lord required more. I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of [p. 1] Celestial marrage-after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.

This promise was so great that I will-ingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart—when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied “If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.” She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me.

I thought through this life my time will be my own
The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone,
No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free,
And as the past hath been the future still will be.
To my guileless heart all free from worldly care
And full of blissful hopes—and youthful visions rare
The world seamed bright the thret’ning clouds were kept
From sight, and all looked fair but pitying angels wept.
They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold.
And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled,
Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise,
Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price;
Thy happy dreems all o’er thou’rt doom’d alas to be
Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny,
And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys
Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes,
And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart,
Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot;
But could’st thou see the future & view that glorious crown,
Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn, [p. 2]
Pure and exalted was thy father’s aim, he saw
A glory in obeying this high celestial law,
For to thousands who’ve died without the light
I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright.
I’d been taught to receive the Prophet of God
And receive every word as the word of the Lord.
But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth,
I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth.

Two years after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum I loved and married your father, Horace Kimball Whitney, eldest son of Bishop Newel K. and Elizabeth Ann Whitney. He stood proxy for Joseph & I stood for Elizabeth Sikes. We were sealed in the Nauvoo Temple over the alter on the 3d of Feb. 1846. & we soon after crossed the

Mississipi river on the way to these Rocky Mountains. Since coming here I have given him Lucy B. Kimball & Mary Cravath to wife. By him I have borne eleven children, who I hoped to see crowned in the Celestial Kingdom. We have lived happily together for over 35 years & still we are spared as monuments of God’s mercy. I have long since learned to leave all with Him, who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to theProphet ofGod will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises

Now, my children, I ask Him to bless and preserve these lines that my children & my grandchildren & their children’s children may read them & may they all lives so as to accomplish they designs of our Maker

Before they have broken this seal the writer of these few lines will most likely have passed onto another stage of action, but I shall live until I have finished my Earthly mission and rejoice in the day of salvation & may all my loved ones enjoy these blessings is the prayer of youraffectionate mother. Helen Mar Kimball SmithWhitney.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-view-helen-mar-whitneys-reminiscences-early-church-history/11-appendix-one

You could just sum all of that up by saying you believe Helen said what you believe she said and that you also believe what you believe she said.

And somehow you think you objectively know something about Joseph Smith from your belief in what you believe Helen said.

[Meadowchik]

50 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

What a detailed response! This is very helpful for me to understand your logical framework. I think it's worth noting that my aim is not to discredit the beliefs you have but to challenge what you are claiming about those beliefs or how you acquired them.  This may sound like the same thing but I consider them to be very different. 

i would like a little more clarification though. You mentioned that you objectively knew that a historical record could  show that JS did some morally questionable things. I was wondering if you could define objective and explain how you came to know something about a historical record in an objective manner. I ask because it sounds to me like you are equating objectivity with attempting to see things from different views, and I have a tough time with that definition of objectivity.

Honestly, it's been such a long time since I constructed that rational bridge that I cannot remember the exact source. What I do remember was that it was a faithful source acknowledged by the church, much like the Helen Mar Kimball statement in my above reply to RevTestament...(I never gave anti-Mormon sources consideration until after I was done with the church, and even then, they don't get automatic approval. But that's not really a challenge for me, there are ample church-approved sources that generate legitimate concerns.)

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

It just seems strange to me that you would question the measuring stick of prayer when there is no objective measure. 

I don't disagree with you that we need to study things out in our mind, but ultimately it is the subjective feelings of our conscience that guide us after giving much thought to it.  Because there is no objective measure, rationality can only take you so far.  Ultimately you have to rely on your gut feelings.  

I think what you are describing is an illusion.  How can you possible distinguish between your intellect and your feelings of conscience?  Where does one end and the other one begin.  Its all intertwined.  However, from what I've read, I believe that study, research, critical thinking, are all skills that we practice and get better at.  By employing these skills effectively, we will be more likely to make better decisions in life.  

Then the final step of feelings of confirmation is just the icing on the cake.  Its not about the gut instinct, its about the study and critical thinking and that includes questioning our assumptions and biases and our gut reaction to things that we're culturally programmed to experience.  

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps you are falsely assuming that because we mention prayer as a measure for morality, that we leave out the prerequisites to effective prayer which entails "studying things out in your mind". 

Its not just studying things out in our mind.  That sounds like meditation and I'm all for meditation because that helps us process how we're reacting to our environment, our body, or awareness of what's around us, this is all important.  The study I'm talking about is research, its gathering knowledge by looking at different perspectives, its learning about the subject matter, its considering alternatives, its seeking opinions from others, its forcing ourselves outside our very mind that is the study I'm talking about.  

[RevTestament]

I am not sure what your problem with it is. She seemed to understand it for the most part:

" I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises." She seemed to understand the promise of eternal life is subject to how she lived her life. Did Yeshua promise eternal life? Does that mean a believer who determines to go murder someone will receive it? Is the issue the young age? What age do you believe Jews married at in the scriptures? Is the issue polygamy itself? If so, that would have been news to Nathan who only scolded David for the one lamb already belonging/married to someone else. The days may come when Christians will be glad for polygamy. I think you know I have not always defended the belief of some regarding polygamy, but there simply is no carte blanche scriptural prohibition of it. I believe if practiced correctly, it can be scriptural. Again, that doesn't mean Joseph completely understood it, or lived it completely correctly. I believe he was young and impressionable and was trying to live what he believed God wanted. I just don't believe the claims that he was some type of predator or monster. No physical evidence bears that out either. No descendants from married women, etc. There is evidence Emma was not happy with him, so possibly he sinned, but that would certainly not be the first time the Lord rebuked him or that he was guilty of sin.

Edited April 13, 2017 by RevTestament

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Honestly, it's been such a long time since I constructed that rational bridge that I cannot remember the exact source. What I do remember was that it was a faithful source acknowledged by the church, much like the Helen Mar Kimball statement in my above reply to RevTestament...(I never gave anti-Mormon sources consideration until after I was done with the church, and even then, they don't get automatic approval. But that's not really a challenge for me, there are ample church-approved sources that generate legitimate concerns.)

Church-approved sources are sometimes just what the Church accepts as something a person has said. They're not necessarily saying that Helen told the truth in that statement.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I thought I made it pretty clear I disagree with the scholars and why. I don't really know how much a majority they are as compared to Christian scholars so don't address that point. I am merely saying one of the main criterion used, if not the main one is that Jesus predicted the complete and utter destruction of the temple. Most textual scholars merely dismiss that because they conclude he couldn't have known. To me that is not a very good reason to date the gospels later. Even if there was a Q document used to write Mark and Luke, for instance, who cares? Luke didn't claim to be an eye witness apostle. He was writing based on what he heard the apostles say, and perhaps already wrote.

The scholarship is much more complex and substantial than your strawman portrayal.  I'm no expert on this, but just a reading of the wikipedia link on the Daniel scholarship gives the basic background. I find that whenever someone says they disagree with mainstream scholarship, that is a red flag.  It's ok to have different beliefs theologically, but I think the scholarship shouldn't be dismissed to justify those beliefs.  You shouldn't hang your hat on the Daniel 9 interpretation and prior poor interpretations that come from Christian tradition.  Modern scholarship and resources are a wealth of knowledge, even when that challenges the prior views, we should be open to new information and not stuck in the past.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I don't believe the Church says it has an exclusivity claim as to the nature of God. I believe men and women have been trying to figure out God for ages, but that their best chance of doing that is through Christ. I too don't believe I should believe like some particular group. I believe I should believe in God, how He witnesses of Himself in scripture, through His Son, and how His Son reveals Him. I doubt I believe exactly like anyone else in the Church. But I certainly do believe the Church has the basics right. Do I believe this earth was so honored that Christ's atonement here atoned for all the rest of the worlds before and after? No. I believe that is a misunderstanding of the gospel. Again, I don't believe anyone has the right of private interpretation of scripture, and I don't believe it just because some apostle said it or wrote it in a book.

Sunday School lessons seem to claim that Mormons know more about God's nature than anyone else.  Maybe not everything, but our version of the Godhead was even talked about by Oaks in April conference.  Mormonism claims to have superior knowledge.  Again, I would recommend that book by Peter Enns.  Its BYU endorsed!  

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I certainly do believe Christ expects me to defend Him to the death. Most of the time it involves defending Him to life and love, and that is beautiful. However, there are plenty who have died for Him, and continue to do so. 

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I don't believe ISIS cares what flavor of Christianity you are, if you are Christian you are subject to death or slavery if you won't pay the jizyah. Islam wants you to deny the Son. That is a flavor of religion my friend. Sometimes you have to choose what God you will serve.

This makes me sad as I think about how Mormonism has twisted things in a way to make people believe as you've expressed.  I don't believe in a God that would ever want you to defend him to the death.  Any fundamentalist beliefs about defending to the death or converting infidels or the crusades or blood atonement or any of this death stuff is completely antithetical to the idea of a benevolent deity.  God doesn't need our service or praise or defense, God is not a greedy monarch.  God just wants you to love.  Love yourself, love your fellow man, and that is how you show your love to God. 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe in a God that would ever want you to defend him to the death.  Any fundamentalist beliefs about defending to the death or converting infidels or the crusades or blood atonement or any of this death stuff is completely antithetical to the idea of a benevolent deity.  God doesn't need our service or praise or defense, God is not a greedy monarch.  God just wants you to love.  Love yourself, love your fellow man, and that is how you show your love to God.

Depends on what you think of as defending him (our Lord) to the death, I think. Peter had the wrong idea when he tried to defend our Lord with a sword, but maybe there is another way to defend our Lord, or his principles, or his people, or something else that is our Lord's, in a way that our Lord would approve of.

 

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Depends on what you think of as defending him (our Lord) to the death, I think. Peter had the wrong idea when he tried to defend our Lord with a sword, but maybe there is another way to defend our Lord, or his principles, or his people, or something else that is our Lord's, in a way that our Lord would approve of.

Love is the answer my friend.  No defense needed.  

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Love is the answer my friend.  No defense needed.

How would that work, exactly?  Say for example that someone attacard our Lord or his servants or something his servants say in the name of the Lord.  Our Lord has said that whether he says something personally or whether he says something through one of his servants, it is the same.

So what would you do if someone attacked or tried to attack our Lord or one of his servants? How would you love the attacker, exactly?

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

How would that work, exactly?  Say for example that someone attacard our Lord or his servants or something his servants say in the name of the Lord.  Our Lord has said that whether he says something personally or whether he says something through one of his servants, it is the same.

So what would you do if someone attacked or tried to attack our Lord or one of his servants? How would you love the attacker, exactly?

How about turn the other cheek and love our enemies?  The gospel message is a message of peace and love.

Also, I'm not talking about physical battery, and neither was RevTestament. Certainly if someone tries to physically commit an illegal life threatening act and you're standing there with a chance to prevent the act, you should do so.  Different subject completely.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think what you are describing is an illusion.  How can you possible distinguish between your intellect and your feelings of conscience?  Where does one end and the other one begin.  Its all intertwined.  However, from what I've read, I believe that study, research, critical thinking, are all skills that we practice and get better at.  By employing these skills effectively, we will be more likely to make better decisions in life.  

Then the final step of feelings of confirmation is just the icing on the cake.  Its not about the gut instinct, its about the study and critical thinking and that includes questioning our assumptions and biases and our gut reaction to things that we're culturally programmed to experience.  

Its not just studying things out in our mind.  That sounds like meditation and I'm all for meditation because that helps us process how we're reacting to our environment, our body, or awareness of what's around us, this is all important.  The study I'm talking about is research, its gathering knowledge by looking at different perspectives, its learning about the subject matter, its considering alternatives, its seeking opinions from others, its forcing ourselves outside our very mind that is the study I'm talking about.  

We are not really saying different things if you acknowledge that "feelings of confirmation" is the final step.  You initially said that we should not rely on feelings but should rely on our "God given brain" in determining morality, but now you acknowledge that feelings are the ultimate deciding factor.  You clearly make a distinction between intellectual pursuits and feelings of conscience, yet you simultaneously insist that there is no distinction.  What gives?

"Study, research, and critical thinking" alone cannot tell you the right answer.  Why?  Because again, there is NO objective way to discover what is morally right or wrong.  All critical thinking/study/research can do is help you decide better how you personally feel about something.  That comes from your "gut" a.k.a "heart" a.k.a "conscience".  It ultimately is a "gut" decision because there is no objective answer.  Study and research can tell you what the capital of Utah is, but it cannot tell you what is morally right and wrong.  There is a limit to such intellectual pursuits in regard to morality.   That is the distinction I am talking about, and that is where your conscience steps in and intellectual pursuits end.  Your conscience goes beyond the limits of intellectual pursuits.  It goes where there are no objective answers or measures for right and wrong.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

If you are unable to critically evaluate the pros and cons of the organization that you are a part of, I find that unfortunate.  When I first mentioned how membership in an organization biases a person towards that organization, you pointed out how we are all biased towards the things we preference.  I acknowledged your point about my preferences towards even this message board and I admit my bias.  Yet now you claim objectivity about your views on the church.  How is this not a contradiction?  

I belong to an organization which eats chocolate cake, because my preference is chocolate cake.

I have carefully evaluated my preference for chocolate cake in all aspects and listed them in my own life.  I like the color, the flavor and the smell and I am absolutely sure that I like chocolate cake above all other flavors. I have carefully evaluated the organization of which I am a member and it is clear to me that it is the best organization for people who advocate eating chocolate cake.  I am certain that chocolate cake is the best for me and my organization is the best organization for that purpose.

But you get to like cherry pie if you like.

[SmileyMcGee]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

You could just sum all of that up by saying you believe Helen said what you believe she said and that you also believe what you believe she said.

And somehow you think you objectively know something about Joseph Smith from your belief in what you believe Helen said.

Pot, meet kettle.

I don't mean to be rude. I just couldn't help but chuckle at the irony. You're an enigma to me Ahab.

Edited April 13, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Pot, meet kettle.

I don't mean to be rude. I just couldn't help but chuckle at the irony. You're an enigma to me Ahab.

You mean there really is a pot and a kettle in objective reality ?

I've thought so all along.

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The scholarship is much more complex and substantial than your strawman portrayal.  I'm no expert on this, but just a reading of the wikipedia link on the Daniel scholarship gives the basic background. I find that whenever someone says they disagree with mainstream scholarship, that is a red flag.  It's ok to have different beliefs theologically, but I think the scholarship shouldn't be dismissed to justify those beliefs.  You shouldn't hang your hat on the Daniel 9 interpretation and prior poor interpretations that come from Christian tradition.  Modern scholarship and resources are a wealth of knowledge, even when that challenges the prior views, we should be open to new information and not stuck in the past.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

You can "red flag" my departure from the scholars all you want, but I will continue to say they are wrong. I've been over this several times. For a textual analysis to be correct the text must comport with their interpretation, but it doesn't. The prophecy itself says it won't be established until the time of the end. It says some will exalt themselves to establish the vision - that kinda sounds like your scholars! i wasn't talking about Daniel 11 & 12 anyway. We were discussing the scholarship of dating the NT gospels, and I told you why I don't believe the scholars. The scholars date the NT gospels late because they don't believe in prophecy. If you aren't familiar with the scholarship maybe you shouldn't be making judgments about it, or my opinion on it. Changing the discussion over to Daniel 9 or 11 certainly is not impressing me that you know what you are talking about. All I am saying is that I took a course in the subject from a well respected professor from a well respected college, so I know the subject matter. 

"This makes me sad as I think about how Mormonism has twisted things in a way to make people believe as you've expressed.  I don't believe in a God that would ever want you to defend him to the death.  Any fundamentalist beliefs about defending to the death or converting infidels or the crusades or blood atonement or any of this death stuff is completely antithetical to the idea of a benevolent deity.  God doesn't need our service or praise or defense, God is not a greedy monarch.  God just wants you to love.  Love yourself, love your fellow man, and that is how you show your love to God."

What I said has nothing to do with Mormonism per se. It has to do with understanding the atonement and the nature of God. I don't feel like going over all that again, but I simply disagree with you. I don't mean this in mean way, but I don't believe you understand the atonement. Love is not all that God wants. God demands justice as our judge. 

"