"I was there", A simple message accompanied by a visual evidence could suffice

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Has the spirit ever told you to do something contrary to what the prophet at the time said? If so, did you follow what you thought the spirit said or did you follow the prophet?

I would always follow the spirit because that is the only way I know whether or not the prophet is right.

We follow no one blindly.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What was it, if you want to share?  Even so, you're not supposed to do that, right, unless the prophet was acting as a man?  Anyway, how do you explain this:  We are supposed to follow the prophet but the prophet sometimes acts as a man and so we are to use the spirit to tell us whether or not the prophet is acting as a man or a prophet because the prophet won't tell us when he is acting as a man or a prophet.  If there is a contrary spiritual manifestation to what the prophet says, then we are supposed to follow the prophet who could simply be acting as a man at that point.  Wouldn't it be easier if the prophet just said "thus sayeth the Lord ......." Why do you think they don't do that?

I joined the Church in 1971 knowing full well the Priesthood ban. I disagreed with it. Time has proven me right.

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think President Uchtdorf would want us to question everything in our quest for truth or only some things?

I suspect he'd expect us to question everything but then listen to the answers. I think a common problem is getting an answer and then ignoring it.

But of course I don't know for sure how Pres. Uchtdorf would answer. I'd just say that I try to question everything but notice that in my questioning a lot of the answers stay the same. It seems fair to call those true.

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

Duplicate

Edited May 10, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

But I did more than ask Mormons, pogi.  I was Mormon, believed Mormonism, and lived it for forty years.

Yes, I know.  After roaming these forums for some time now however, you should notice that Mormons are not automatons who hold the same beliefs and act in the same ways.  Active members disagree with prophets, and each other, all of the time.  Each member's faith is unique and personal, yet you are trying to squish us all into your little mold of "follow the prophet".  That may have been the core of your faith, and your encapsulated vision of the church, but it is not mine.  Your version of Mormonism is why your faith died and you are no longer a member, whereas my faith is still burning bright precisely because I don't live your version of Mormonism. Can you accept that?

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So I suggest a truce: we both can legitimately speak about our perspectives about Mormonism, and if either of us makes claims, we can be expected to support them.

I am fine with speaking about our perspectives, so long as no one is pretending to speak for the "entirety" of Mormonism. 

First, I don't dismiss the idea that we should follow the prophet, but that needs to be understood in context.  So, to limit Mormonism to that isolated mantra is both restrictive to what Mormonism really is, and it is dangerous to individual and personal spirituality which Mormonism promotes.  Not to mention, it is contrary to the teaching of the prophets, which you claim we should follow.  I can understand why you left if that is your perspective of Mormonism in a nut shell. 

Here is what Mormonism is all about.  Its ultimate goal is to foster personal revelation and spirituality.  Mormonism is all about self-reliance, both physically and spiritually.  That is the backbone of Mormon teachings.

Do the prophets agree with you?  No!

Quote

In our worship there are two elements: One is spiritual communion arising from our own meditation; the other, instruction from others, particularly from those who have authority to guide and instruct us. Of the two, the more profitable introspectively is the meditation. Meditation is the language of the soul...Meditation is a form of prayer. (David O. McKay)

Note that David O. McKay acknowledges the prophets authority to guide and instruct, but the part of Mormonism that you refuse to acknowledge is the "more profitable" part. 

Quote

 

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

Brother Joseph W. Young remarked this morning that he wished the people to receive the word of the Lord through his servants, be dictated by them, and have no will of their own. I would express it in this wise: God has placed within us a will, and we should be satisfied to have it controlled by the will of the Almighty. Let the human will be indomitable for right....

Let all persons be fervent in prayer, until they know the things of God for themselves and become certain that they are walking in the path that leads to everlasting life; then will envy, the child of ignorance, vanish, and there will be no disposition in any man to place himself above another; for such a feeling meets no countenance in the order of heaven. Jesus Christ never wanted to be different from his father: they were and are one. If a people are led by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and they are cognizant of the fact through their faithfulness, there is no fear but they will be one in Christ Jesus, and see eye to eye.[2] (Brigham Young)

 

Quote

Some may say, "Brethren, you who lead the Church, we have all confidence in you, we are not in the least afraid but what everything will go right under your superintendence; all the business matters will be transacted right; and if brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am." I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, "If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are," this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.  (Brigham Young)

You also have the President Uchtdorf;s wonderful talk to reference as well.  These are just a couple references off the top of my head from the prophets.  "Follow the prophets" you say?  Ok, I will follow them by listening to and following the inner voice of the spirit above all.  So far I have not been excommunicated in doing so and seem to be in pretty good standing.  

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So, just like anyone else, you can believe what you will about Mormonism.  You can adapt it to fit your needs.  However, if you want to participate in Mormonism, you must follow the prophet to a minimal degree.  Otherwise, according to Mormonism, you cannot receive the blessings of the ordinances of salvation or exaltation.

Should we follow the prophet?  Only as they follow the Lord.  How can you know if they are following the Lord?  Revelation.  You see, revelation is at the core.  That is Mormonism.  I don't agree with every prophet in every word, yet I am still a Mormon.  I don't follow the prophets in every word, yet I am still a Mormon.   If your personal revelation is not in-line with the prophets, the most Mormon thing you could do is follow the "more profitable" inner spirit and let the consequence follow.  For some, they will stay active members; for others, they will choose to leave on their own; and for a few, they will be excommunicated.  We are no different from just about any other Christian religion in that regard, there are core tenants that must be obeyed to remain active.  Only the prophet can receive revelation for the church as a whole.  To pretend that you have the authority of God as a prophet and preach your own doctrines which are contrary to the revelations will get you excommunicated.  That is not to say that you have to be blindly obedient in all things though, you just can't pretend like you are the mouthpiece of God for another person.  That is not how it works in Mormonism!  Do you see the difference?

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Yes, I know.  After roaming these forums for some time now however, you should notice that Mormons are not automatons who hold the same beliefs and act in the same ways.  Active members disagree with prophets, and each other, all of the time.  Each member's faith is unique and personal, yet you are trying to squish us all into your little mold of "follow the prophet".  That may have been the core of your faith, and your encapsulated vision of the church, but it is not mine.  Your version of Mormonism is why your faith died and you are no longer a member, whereas my faith is still burning bright precisely because I don't live your version of Mormonism. Can you accept that?

This is a really important point to make. Fully agree.

I know some critics, especially critics who were former Mormons, want to put up this model of real Mormonism and dismiss other beleivers as mere internet Mormons. (Not specifying anyone here - speaking generally) Yet everyone has their own views and practices. There may be a tension between that reality and the very valid critique of "buffet members" who just pick and choose what they like. However I think we have to distinguish between buffet Mormons based upon political or similar views and members who truly view things the way they do after prayer and inquiry.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, I know.  After roaming these forums for some time now however, you should notice that Mormons are not automatons who hold the same beliefs and act in the same ways.  Active members disagree with prophets, and each other, all of the time.  Each member's faith is unique and personal, yet you are trying to squish us all into your little mold of "follow the prophet".  That may have been the core of your faith, and your encapsulated vision of the church, but it is not mine.  Your version of Mormonism is why your faith died and you are no longer a member, whereas my faith is still burning bright precisely because I don't live your version of Mormonism. Can you accept that?

I am fine with speaking about our perspectives, so long as no one is pretending to speak for the "entirety" of Mormonism. 

First, I don't dismiss the idea that we should follow the prophet, but that needs to be understood in context.  So, to limit Mormonism to that isolated mantra is both restrictive to what Mormonism really is, and it is dangerous to individual and personal spirituality which Mormonism promotes.  Not to mention, it is contrary to the teaching of the prophets, which you claim we should follow.  I can understand why you left if that is your perspective of Mormonism in a nut shell. 

Here is what Mormonism is all about.  Its ultimate goal is to foster personal revelation and spirituality.  Mormonism is all about self-reliance, both physically and spiritually.  That is the backbone of Mormon teachings.

Do the prophets agree with you?  No!

Note that David O. McKay acknowledges the prophets authority to guide and instruct, but the part of Mormonism that you refuse to acknowledge is the "more profitable" part. 

You also have the President Uchtdorf;s wonderful talk to reference as well.  These are just a couple references off the top of my head from the prophets.  "Follow the prophets" you say?  Ok, I will follow them by listening to and following the inner voice of the spirit above all.  So far I have not been excommunicated in doing so and seem to be in pretty good standing.  

Should we follow the prophet?  Only as they follow the Lord.  How can you know if they are following the Lord?  Revelation.  You see, revelation is at the core.  That is Mormonism.  I don't agree with every prophet in every word, yet I am still a Mormon.  I don't follow the prophets in every word, yet I am still a Mormon.   If your personal revelation is not in-line with the prophets, the most Mormon thing you could do is follow the "more profitable" inner spirit and let the consequence follow.  For some, they will stay active members; for others, they will choose to leave on their own; and for a few, they will be excommunicated.  We are no different from just about any other Christian religion in that regard, there are core tenants that must be obeyed to remain active.  Only the prophet can receive revelation for the church as a whole.  To pretend that you have the authority of God as a prophet and preach your own doctrines which are contrary to the revelations will get you excommunicated.  That is not to say that you have to be blindly obedient in all things though, you just can't pretend like you are the mouthpiece of God for another person.  That is not how it works in Mormonism!  Do you see the difference?

I actually think that what I did write can be faith-promoting, Pogi. I think that many believing Mormons, even you, might agree were it not an unofficial apostate who wrote it.

It should be pointed out that you offered a sampling of quotes from various leaders. Why should they signify in this conversation, why out of quite possibly thousands of writings should you use relatively random excerpts as a counterargument for the summary of Mormonism?

I certainly know that given an ideological group, excommunication can be justifiable. I totally understand that. I also understand that my take on Mormonism could be inaccurate. I understand that everyone sincerely percieves things differently. That said, regardless of whether I correctly encapsulated it in accurate descriptors, I think its fair to say that Mormonism through the church can behave in a well-defined way.

I still think I'm close, and I used foundational elements and identity markers to argue my point. Surely you realise that the talks you quoted cannot represent Mormonism as a whole?

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I actually think that what I did write can be faith-promoting, Pogi. I think that many believing Mormons, even you, might agree were it not an unofficial apostate who wrote it.

I would disagree with anybody who encapsulates Mormonism to those words.  It cannot be faith promoting, because it completely removes spiritual self-reliance from the equation.  Without that, faith gives way to blind obedience. 

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It should be pointed out that you offered a sampling of quotes from various leaders. Why should they signify in this conversation, why out of quite possibly thousands of writings should you use relatively random excerpts as a counterargument for the summary of Mormonism?

Yes, various leaders will say different things in different ways.  This just demonstrates my point that we MUST rely on personal revelation above all.

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I still think I'm close, and I used foundational elements and identity markers to argue my point. Surely you realise that the talks you quoted cannot represent Mormonism as a whole?

You are close.  You just need to add "...as they follow the Lord" to the end of it. Yes, I do not pretend to speak for all of Mormonism as you do.  I recognize my boundaries are limited to my personal perspective.  This again demonstrates the need for personal revelation. 

[MormonVideoGame]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Finding a wife is pseudoscience and therefore irrelevant to your life, as is choosing a value system 

Marriage doesn't exists in nature, it is something we humans invented. 

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is about what is subjective and unique to you in your life.  It is your world you are creating from matter unorganized as a god in embryo.

How could anyone be Mormon and not get that? The scriptures are to apply to YOUR life literally and metaphorically as is necessary.

They are not about describing the world- they are about describing what you want to become.

Okay. But if there is no life after death my "world" will disappear along with me  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Marriage doesn't exists in nature, it is something we humans invented. 

Okay. But if there is no life after death my "world" will disappear along with me  

I like grapefruit.

[MormonVideoGame]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I like grapefruit.

if there is no life after death what happens to my world or worldview after I die?

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

if there is no life after death what happens to my world or worldview after I die?

What is your problem?  Unless you have written it down then it becomes irrelevant.

Why- is that not clear to you or something?

What happens to the world view of Hume vs the world view of John Q Nobodyimportant?

What do you think happens to anybody's personal world view after they die?  Even if there is life after death the answer is the same.  Every world view is unique

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

if there is no life after death what happens to my world or worldview after I die?

The more I think about this the more it bugs me. Your worldview is your religion. What happened to Jesus' worldview when he died ? What happened to Muhammad's worldview when he died? Buddha? Martin Luther? John Wesley? Are you starting to get this?

[Ouagadougou]

On 03.05.2017 at 6:26 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

It would be so wonderful if Jesus left a signature like this Dinosaur did. My lifelong struggle with belief would non-existent. 

Look at the BoM:  wars with MILLIONS killed and not a shred of evidence IMO; no wheels, horses, chariots, DNA and linguistic evidence.  It's all apparently lost in some remote jungle in Central America; yet, we find evidence of human migrations tens of thousands of years before the BoM, despite the fact that the Earth is only 6,000 years old!  Keep in mind that apparently there was no death or animals killing each other before this 6,000 years, but some how we have countless fossiles and evidence to prove otherwise.  IMO, it's absolutely foolish to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131204-human-fossil-dna-spain-denisovan-cave/

[thesometimesaint]

That's a

16 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Marriage doesn't exists in nature, it is something we humans invented. 

Okay. But if there is no life after death my "world" will disappear along with me  

Technically true, but misleading. There are several species of animals that mate for life.

SEE

• Gibbon apes
• wolves
• termites
• coyotes
• barn owls
• beavers
• bald eagles
• golden eagles
• condors
• swans
• brolga cranes
• French angel fish
• sandhill cranes
• pigeons
• prions
• red-tailed hawks
• anglerfish
• ospreys
• prairie voles
• black vultures
•  
• That's a Tautology

[SmileyMcGee]

On 5/9/2017 at 9:43 AM, Meadowchik said:

What I have found useful is to identify the boundaries between science and faith.  Especially, there is a difference between using faith when knowledge is unavailable and using faith despite available knowledge.

With all due respect, I think there is something very problematic with your response. Setting aside the issues with asserting that knowledge can be produced by science, you seem to imply that your "knowledge" is rooted in science. Don't you think that is likely a difficult assertion to defend? When was the last time you used the scientific method to test any of the beliefs you have? When did you last use science to attempt to falsify the ideas of climate change, evolution, plate tectonics, etc? Did you perform any science to test your mayor's assertion that about the Rhine river once flowed through your property? I don't know your background, so maybe you have done some science, but I would bet that you have neither the training nor the resources to justify the vast majority of your beliefs using science. And if you can't do that, how can you claim science as the justification for your beliefs? I would bet that if you took the time to assess your beliefs and how your arrived at your beliefs or "knowledge", you wouldn't be able to say anything more than "This book (or this lecturer or this video or this article) said so, and, based on my experience/perception, I have no reason not to trust it." There is a synonym for this kind of trust, and it's the same term that people use to justify their religious beliefs...you used it three times in your post above, and you somehow think it's different that your "knowledge."  

Edited May 11, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Setting aside the issues with asserting that knowledge can be produced by science, you seem to imply that your "knowledge" is rooted in science. Don't you think that is likely a difficult assertion to defend? When was the last time you used the scientific method to test any of the beliefs you have?

Science is inherently a community activity. To make use of scientific knowledge doesn't imply I need test the beliefs directly. 

That aid I think a method somewhat like the scientific method can be used in regular life. (There is no formal scientific method of course -- it's a loose set of ideas we teach to kids to get them oriented towards how science works)

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Look at the BoM:  wars with MILLIONS killed and not a shred of evidence IMO; no wheels, horses, chariots, DNA and linguistic evidence.  It's all apparently lost in some remote jungle in Central America; yet, we find evidence of human migrations tens of thousands of years before the BoM, despite the fact that the Earth is only 6,000 years old!  Keep in mind that apparently there was no death or animals killing each other before this 6,000 years, but some how we have countless fossiles and evidence to prove otherwise.  IMO, it's absolutely foolish to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. 

I think the evidence the earth is considerably older than 6,000 years is so strong as to make it clear people pushing the young earth are avoiding looking at the evidence.

That said, with the Book of Mormon things are more complex as we have to figure out what is being said by the text. So I think your criticisms there are less apt. But we've gone back and forth on that before so I'll not belabor the point. The problem with young earth creationism too is pushing a particular interpretation of scripture without question.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Look at the BoM:  wars with MILLIONS killed and not a shred of evidence IMO; no wheels, horses, chariots, DNA and linguistic evidence.  It's all apparently lost in some remote jungle in Central America; yet, we find evidence of human migrations tens of thousands of years before the BoM, despite the fact that the Earth is only 6,000 years old!  Keep in mind that apparently there was no death or animals killing each other before this 6,000 years, but some how we have countless fossiles and evidence to prove otherwise.  IMO, it's absolutely foolish to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131204-human-fossil-dna-spain-denisovan-cave/

BoM evidences

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Joseph Smith didn't believe the earth was just 6,000 years old.

SEE https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Age_of_the_Earth

[SmileyMcGee]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Science is inherently a community activity. To make use of scientific knowledge doesn't imply I need test the beliefs directly. 

 

Agreed. but o don't see how finding something useful gives me any knowledge regarding "the reality" as to why it is useful. Evolutionary theory is very useful. Does it give me knowledge as to the what really happened? How would I know? Is asserting about what happened more than a matter of faith? 

But my post was sloppy. I spoke out of both sides of my mouth to raise that question. 

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Agreed. but o don't see how finding something useful gives me any knowledge regarding "the reality" as to why it is useful. Evolutionary theory is very useful. Does it give me knowledge as to the what really happened? How would I know? Is asserting about what happened more than a matter of faith? 

Well useful for what? I think evolutionary theory does give knowledge of what really happened. But of course we have to be careful not to confuse knowledge with certainty.

[thesometimesaint]

If science wasn't useful we'd have cast it out millennia ago as being good for nothing. Science relies on empirical evidence for its claims. IE; If I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen I expect to get water. If I get flying miniature pink elephants. It is probably I that did something wrong.

Edited May 11, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

With all due respect, I think there is something very problematic with your response. Setting aside the issues with asserting that knowledge can be produced by science, you seem to imply that your "knowledge" is rooted in science. Don't you think that is likely a difficult assertion to defend? When was the last time you used the scientific method to test any of the beliefs you have? When did you last use science to attempt to falsify the ideas of climate change, evolution, plate tectonics, etc? Did you perform any science to test your mayor's assertion that about the Rhine river once flowed through your property? I don't know your background, so maybe you have done some science, but I would bet that you have neither the training nor the resources to justify the vast majority of your beliefs using science. And if you can't do that, how can you claim science as the justification for your beliefs? I would bet that if you took the time to assess your beliefs and how your arrived at your beliefs or "knowledge", you wouldn't be able to say anything more than "This book (or this lecturer or this video or this article) said so, and, based on my experience/perception, I have no reason not to trust it." There is a synonym for this kind of trust, and it's the same term that people use to justify their religious beliefs...you used it three times in your post above, and you somehow think it's different that your "knowledge."  

FWIW, I responded that way as a reciprocation of good will. I still mean it

So, I was trying to retreat to some common ground. Please just take the post on face value, not necessarily as ammunition for any science vs religion argument.

I think it can apply to both science and religion. What do you think?

[thesometimesaint]

In their respective fields they work well. Trying to conflate them too much at this point in time is a futile effort.

Edited May 11, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Science is inherently a community activity. To make use of scientific knowledge doesn't imply I need test the beliefs directly. 

That aid I think a method somewhat like the scientific method can be used in regular life. (There is no formal scientific method of course -- it's a loose set of ideas we teach to kids to get them oriented towards how science works)

 

And as he said, one then takes science on faith