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

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

 

What is the difference between a religious testimony and alternative medicine testimony? Alternative medicine "works" for thousands of individuals, including cancer victims, you can find many personal testimonies about it. However, here is what the science says, "People with cancer who choose alternative medicine instead of mainstream cancer treatments may be putting themselves at serious risk. They are giving up the only proven methods of treating their disease" https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/complementary-and-alternative-medicine/complementary-and-alternative-methods-and-cancer/risks-of-not-using-mainstream-treatment.html

 Or fortune-telling? Many people believe in fortune-telling because of some personal experience. 

Is personal experience a reliable method? How please. 

The questions is for all intelligent LDS here

I don't know what the problem is.  You actually do not know the difference between science and religion?  Have you ever studied either one?

Even the placebo effect works sometimes.  But when scientific methods are available to solve scientific questions you would be an idiot to not use them

If you have a religious question you use religious methods.  Seems quite clear to me- why are you so confused?

Personal experience is the only possible way to know what you want out of life.  How is there a reliable test for that OTHER than personal experience?  Did you ask others who you should marry or what you should think about politics?  What expert did you go to to find out if abortion is wrong or not?

Did you decide those on "personal experience"???   How did you know that was "reliable"??

It is absurd to believe that religion is about scientific experimentation- where did you get such a ridiculous notion?  Pragmatic methods work - within THEIR SPHERE.

You are suggesting using a hammer to fix a computer and telling me it is not a good method.  DUH!

You actually think the Bible is a science text book?  That is what you are stating though you don't even know it.  Go ahead and believe in a 6 day creation because that is what your argument implies.

Stick to video games- you are safe there without critical thinking.

Edited May 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SmileyMcGee]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

 

What is the difference between a religious testimony and alternative medicine testimony? Alternative medicine "works" for thousands of individuals, including cancer victims, you can find many personal testimonies about it. However, here is what the science says, "People with cancer who choose alternative medicine instead of mainstream cancer treatments may be putting themselves at serious risk. They are giving up the only proven methods of treating their disease" https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/complementary-and-alternative-medicine/complementary-and-alternative-methods-and-cancer/risks-of-not-using-mainstream-treatment.html

 Or fortune-telling? Many people believe in fortune-telling because of some personal experience. 

Is personal experience a reliable method? How please. 

Have you ever had a non-personal experience? How?

[Avatar4321]

On 5/3/2017 at 8:26 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

When I saw Utah's wilderness first time 26 yrs old, I had little or no knowledge about stuff like Evolution, paleontology or geology. It didn't take me long to be convinced about the origins of the Earth or Humans; it was simply a matter of evidence, which was so abundant in Utah in the form of Rocks, Fossils and geologic strata upon strata laying everywhere. 

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

 

Did you somehow miss school?

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Josephus:   I think the consensus is -- late emendation.  There's a huge cottage industry of Christian apologists who attempt to argue otherwise.

Tacitus:  Almost a century later. So, the contemporaneous evidence is actually very thin to none, unless you consider the Gospels themselves.

None of those things show there is more evidence for other historical figures - especially religious ones.

Buddha - only evidence is later evidence by his followers who preserved his writings.

Zoroastrianism - virtually no evidence of its founder. We aren't even sure where it started. 

Mithraism - ditto

pagan gods - usually no evidence of where the names of various pagan gods came from - who first used their names, etc.

Islam - only one man can be said to be the founder of this religion, who believed he was visited by an evil spirit and became suicidal to the point of only being saved by his wife

I believe the JudeoChristian faith is unique in the number of writers attesting to the truths therein, and being traceable to specific time periods and specific places.

Quote

 I realize that as Christians we give strong support for the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, but -- no known contemporaneous manuscripts themselves of the Gospels; no near-contemporaneous quotes by third parties; nothing.

I believe there are some near contemporaneous quotes by third parties. A number of early 2nd century Christian writers attest to Jesus and the scriptures. Some mention a Hebrew version of Matthew, etc.

Quote

But, here we have Paul who surely would have been an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry in some fashion, but mentions nothing about it.  Why not?  The only homily that Paul attributes to Jesus -- more blessed to give than receive -- is nowhere mentioned in the Gospels.

 

There is no evidence that Paul was actually an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry. He preached against Jesus as well as all other sect leaders most likely. To him Jesus would have been just another heretic - not someone he would have followed around. You are assuming something that is simply probably not the case. In fact Paul may have only entered the picture once Christianity began to spread to other cities, and he considered it a danger to his brand of Judaism.

Quote

 

I say all this not to undermine faith but to point out that there is something fundamentally amiss in the way the church pulled together the New Testament.   It seems the Gospels themselves are the product of many hands and "schools."  The only reliable mss of the NT appear to be Paul's letters, and even those have problems.  

I have to agree that in some ways the gospels are the products of many hands. An early version of Matthew or Mark probably served as a basis for the other - commonly referred to as Q. I personally believe the early reports that there was a Hebrew/Aramaic version of Matthew. This obviously would have been translated into Greek and Syriac, and I believe there is textual evidence for this.

After the first Bible was compiled there is evidence of additional tampering with the scriptures. The Catholic Church admits it was responsible for the addition of the Johannine Coma. it is apparent to me the Pericope of John was also added later. However, it rings true to me. Jerome I believe was responsible for many unwarranted changes to the Bible, but I believe this was prophesied. 

 

 

Quote

So, what does this mean? Who knows.  It does not affect my faith.   There is absolutely no evidence of Goshen or an Israelite presence in Egypt during the days of Joseph and Moses, but the Book speaks for itself.

I believe that there is some - you'll just have to wait till I finish preparing the evidence - it is circumstantial but it fits the Biblical narrative. There is even more from the period when Israel was supposed to show up in Canaan. The stele of Merneptah mentions Israel, etc.

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Did you somehow miss school?

I thought the same thing

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I defended scientific concept to get this response from you. 

So how about you simply identify the scientific work that you find limited and problematic.

Do you really need examples? For one; Was Newton the last word on gravity?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

11 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Is there a sensation called "sun"? Or are there sensations that we perceive and collectively associate with an idea of "sun"? Is the idea of "sun" necessary to the sensations associated with it? Can any of this answer your metaphysical inquiry of what is "really there"? Does consensus resolve metaphysical inquiry? Can it explain direct experience?

So how does this apply to religion? If one can't really know if anything is there, doesn't your line of thinking invalidate religious experience as well? After all, how can one be sure that the religious feeling is associated at all with what the religious group says?

[Atheist Mormon]

17 hours ago, Ahab said:

What dinosaur?  There is no dinosaur there. And there are many ways to interpret that so-called evidence of whatever you or other people think that is.

But let's suppose for a moment that there really was a dinosaur that left that footprint, somehow.  How many years ago was that, if that really happened?

The interesting thing about time on this planet is that it is all dated either before or after Christ. Either B.C. or A.D.

Not too shabby as evidence that "Jesus Christ was here".

I don't remember if I answered this before but let me show you a relevant analogy; are you going to refute this picture being other than human? The place is called Laetoli, Africa, preserved in ash for over 3 million years. Your saying  "There is no dinosaur there" is explainable by me.

[Maidservant]

(Going to pour out some thoughts, may or may not be in a coherent order.)

Evidence and proof are not the same thing.  But often I hear them conflated in speaking.  Many things have evidence, or what can be said to be evidence.  But does that evidence rise to the level of proof?  That may be a very personal perspective, what someone accepts as evidence accumulated to the point of proof.  When I hear debates like this, I would love to hear people speaking of (their level of) proof, rather than 'evidence'.  There's plenty of evidence to go around.  Evidence is merely some kind of consequence that is in the present that indicates there is a source of that consequence.  Quantity and quality (according to what criteria) of consequence(s) eventually gives rise to proof to the observer (maker of meaning).  Do notice that 'criteria' is a prerequisite to evaluating the quality of the evidence.  Likely that criteria would be a combination of accumulated paradigm (interpretation, language, idea history) and previous stacking of evidence(s) that are 'commonly' accepted (at least in whatever circle the individual has chosen to align herself with).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

When there are faith debates, I find that the emerged meaning of 'faith' tends to be 'a mental assent to a conceptual cosmos and details and consequences of such especially as it relates to being human'.  While that definition has become entrenched over a millennia or more, so it's no surprise that is what we are working from, nevertheless, in my study it is not the 'faith' presented in the New Testament nor the Book of Mormon.  I am not suggesting that one is required to subscribe to either of those texts as a foundation for being informed in one's approach to the world (world view).  But the debate often centers around the 'for' or 'against' the faith in the scriptures; and so that is why I refer to the scriptures.  A 'mental assent' faith (i.e. trust that something is true without evidence) is NOT in the scriptures.

Let me start here.  "Now faith is . . . substance [and] evidence."   Hebrews 11:1

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For those asking whether not they should have faith (NOT a mental assent), or if they really mean whether or not they ought to accept certain conceptual elements into their world view (NOT faith)--don't.  Don't do it.

For time and eternity, the only place you will ever be is with yourself.  You have to live with yourself, be at peace with yourself.  'Heaven' and 'hell' are located at YOURSELF.  That's the point of being human and having full responsibility for yourself, the creation of yourself.  If you are satisfied, then by golly, absolutely do not fix what ain't broken.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There is an 'unknown' aspect to (scriptural) faith.  But the 'unknown' does not mean 'unsupported concepts'.

It's a much more dynamic, human unknown.  As in . . . take the leap.

Or perhaps I should not call it unknown.  The scripture says unseen.  Which is not necessarily the same as unknown.

When you go out to a garden, you cannot see the radishes yet.  Cause . . . they are not there.  Faith IS the planting, the nourishing.  It is the work we are willing to do over TIME, the patience and courage we are willing to have . . . in order to enjoy a harvest at some point.  But it's not a crap shoot either.  If you plant a radish seed, you can be reasonably certain you will harvest radishes.  You know that there may be bunny rabbits, droughts, lots of challenges that may frustrate the process.  But also it can be predicted that planting a radish seed will result in a radish, NOT, say, a pumpkin or an octopus or a spinning purple torus.

Now, if someone has never planted a garden or doesn't know how they work, there may be more uncertainty.  But ask Grandpa, the veteran gardener, you can trust what he has to say about gardening.  And you become willing to plant your first garden, even if you haven't had the experience yourself yet.  You trust someone else's experience to begin with.

Faith IS work.  Faith IS creation.  Faith is holding a hope (something unseen in material reality yet, but seen in the heart or mind's eye) and then waking up each day and doing what is necessary to bring that hope into reality (upon the laws and principles that apply to creating/harvesting that particular item).  For example, when you first get married, the fullness of what marriage can be is unseen; hoped for.  But you begin on day 1 to do what you best know about bringing a marvelous, living, daily marriage; and in the case of a marriage, if faith has been applied, the harvest could be endless.

This is the faith that Alma describes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Paul's faith is similar, but he is having a somewhat different conversation, challenging something he sees within the people he is serving that he wishes to address.  Paul is very urgent that we LIVE on a daily basis according to what is right.  That is Paul's faith.  You must LIVE.  Your 'religion' must be HOW YOU LIVE.  Religion cannot be the giving of tokens (law), tendered to get into 'heaven' and thereby bypassing the real work.  Paul says, no short cuts.  You have to BE.  FAITH.

I find it so sad that Paul's message on faith is sometimes understood exactly the opposite, where 'faith' (i.e. a confession of Jesus) is tendered as the token (law) to enter salvation, and living according to what is right is considered not as necessary.

Paul meant for us to know that we cannot become purified by the rituals we perform, and perform them exactly.   Pat ourselves on the back.  Go out and live any way, as long as we showed up for the rituals.  Nope.  Paul invites us to be that charitable one--that exalted human being.  That was Paul's faith--act, and live, until you come to the harvest of charity, the harvest of yourself.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

When debating whether to believe in God (again, for me I say, DON'T DO IT, lol), I find it absolutely necessary to define 'God' before proceeding.  Because often when I hear the parameters of the God described, I can only say, "I'm an atheist to that God also."  I find that many atheists have a very clear definition about (their) God and have lumped all that they reject about what is stupid about life and labeled it 'God'.  Of course, there is help doing that, as those who subscribe to God, also have that same definition and are defending.  But that working definition if very important before furthering the conversation; and in this particular MDDB debate, there are more than one participants, and who knows what the parameters are that each person has chosen for themselves under the heading of 'God', and thereafter subscribing or rejecting.

For example, in my worldview, I have no category called 'supernatural'.  It's a nil set.  I haven't put anything under that heading, so it's a meaningless babble to me that I neither accept nor reject--there's just nothing there.

(I also have no set in my worldview called 'natural', either, but that may be another story for another time.)

~~~~~~~

God.

What a word.  So tiny, yet so densely packed with so much language, conceptual, paradigm, cultural debris.  A word that comes out of the mouth of billions on this earth and means something a little different each time.

I myself can use the word 'God' in more than one way.  Sometimes it may be more of a condemnation; sometimes it encapsulates what is most transcendent.

For myself, I made a conscious decision to continue to use the word as a blessing (for the most part) and I have given the word 'God' a very specific definition, and when it comes out of my mouth, it means neither more nor less than the definition I have designed and accepted for myself. So the opportunity becomes to present my definition, and then the conversation becomes about the pros and cons of it.  It's very personal to the conversants.

Why do we insist on talking as if we were all talking about the same thing?

Not to mention, 'God' is an English word, with an etymological history that takes us eventually in the mists of time somewhere in the vicinity of "Odin" (wha?!?), so every time I apply the syllable 'God' to an idea history that had its roots in the Middle East and passed through Roman Culture, I giggle somewhat.  "God," I may say, and in my mind's eye, I see Odin in his helmet winking at me.  Ha ha ha.

In any case, for myself, GOD is something I participate in.  I wake up every morning and choose again--to participate in God.  Participation=faith.   I believe, and believe, and believe some more.  It's my choice.  It's how I love to design my life.

God is not something I am 'guessing' at (the definition of faith that I reject, the 'sacred guess').  God is present in my experience minute by minute.  I know GOD.  God is something that 'I' choose, and that 'I' do (not something that someone/thing OUT THERE does to ME).

God is what I know.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Maidservant

[Meadowchik]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not Mormonism?

I have a temple recommend and was perfectly truthful- and have a leadership position in the stake Melchizadek priesthood.  If I am not a Mormon you better contact my stake president who is one of my close friends and ask him if I am Mormon.

And you are an ex-Mormon.  Who are you to say what Mormonism is since you clearly do not understand how my position is Mormon?

Your concept of religion is not Mormonism.  Being a current member is not necessarily a requirement of understanding it.

And indeed, it may be some ex-Mormons who do know that line when something is no longer Mormonism.  Time and time again, from the earliest of its history, through its transitory struggles, to its most sacred covenants to modern times, Mormonism can be encapsulated in three words: "Follow the Prophet." Of course you may get by if you have your own idiosynchrosies and don't rock the boat, but step a toe out of line, appear to question the prophet, then you're a threat.

[SmileyMcGee]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So how does this apply to religion? If one can't really know if anything is there, doesn't your line of thinking invalidate religious experience as well? After all, how can one be sure that the religious feeling is associated at all with what the religious group says?

I don't think it validates or invalidates any belief, religious, scientific, or otherwise. To do so I would have to assert some conclusion about "ultimate reality" and the proximity of a belief to that ultimate reality. But how can I know what ultimately is? Consensus? Praying? Listening to others tell me their ideas? Labeling things that I feel, see, hear? Compiling a framework of ideas, associations, etc? What makes any of these methods "objectively true" or "real"? Are the axioms upon which they are built "real"? 

All I'm doing is shrugging my shoulders at the metaphysical assertions made in the thread (and others) and asking "how can you know that? Why is that necessarily true? " Apparently the posing of those questions to some in the science crowd is equivalent to hindering the progress of modern society 😊. And asking those questions of some in the religious crowd is blasphemy. All I can do is laugh and admit that I don't get it.

Edited May 9, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Do you really need examples? For one; Was Newton the last word on gravity?

I am interested in examples if you insist on scientific limitations as a rebuttal against the limitations of religion. Specific vs specific.  Most of us are familiar with the general limitations of both.

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

First I want apologize if my previous comment came off a bit rough. There's no reason for that. 

To answer you questions, I find all science limited and none of it necessarily problematic. None of what I have said could possibly invalidate a scientific idea. I don't know how I could do that, but many of the assertions made in this thread seem like metaphysics disguised as science. That, to me, does propose a very difficult problem.

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.

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Time and time again, from the earliest of its history, through its transitory struggles, to its most sacred covenants to modern times, Mormonism can be encapsulated in three words: "Follow the Prophet." Of course you may get by if you have your own idiosynchrosies and don't rock the boat, but step a toe out of line, appear to question the prophet, then you're a threat.

No.

Not 'no' about the validity of your conclusion for yourself.  I think you should trust your own experience and what you know from it.  We all need to be able to do that.

But 'no' I have not encapsulated Mormonism in those three words; nor do I suspect have most Mormons or even non-Mormons.  There are likely innumerable encapsulations that could result from individuals' experience of engaging with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

My three words of Mormonism would be more along this line: Transforming humans to charity. [Sorry, four words.]

Not to disregard the nuance of experience good, bad, and ugly that cannot be described by those three words.  But if I HAD to encapsulate (is that a good idea? encapsulating such a large, myriad, multi-pronged experience into three words? hmmmm) . . . then I like mine better than yours .  Which is why it is mine.

But knowing your encapsulation also helps me to understand the decisions you have made from it, and I can see why you would choose what you have from the starting point of those three words and what it means to you.  (I mean, only as far as I can see from your brief responses, which means I can't see much, since I don't really know you.)

Edited May 9, 2017 by Maidservant

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I am interested in examples if you insist on scientific limitations as a rebuttal against the limitations of religion. Specific vs specific.  Most of us are familiar with the general limitations of both.

Yes there are well known limits of both. The LDS fully accept new knowledge from science and God.

SEE Article of Faith #9  We believe all that God has revealed, all that [H]e does now reveal, and we believe that [H]e will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[Bob Crockett]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

None of those things show there is more evidence for other historical figures - especially religious ones.

Buddha - only evidence is later evidence by his followers who preserved his writings.

Zoroastrianism - virtually no evidence of its founder. We aren't even sure where it started. 

Mithraism - ditto

pagan gods - usually no evidence of where the names of various pagan gods came from - who first used their names, etc.

Islam - only one man can be said to be the founder of this religion, who believed he was visited by an evil spirit and became suicidal to the point of only being saved by his wife

I believe the JudeoChristian faith is unique in the number of writers attesting to the truths therein, and being traceable to specific time periods and specific places.

I believe there are some near contemporaneous quotes by third parties. A number of early 2nd century Christian writers attest to Jesus and the scriptures. Some mention a Hebrew version of Matthew, etc.

There is no evidence that Paul was actually an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry. He preached against Jesus as well as all other sect leaders most likely. To him Jesus would have been just another heretic - not someone he would have followed around. You are assuming something that is simply probably not the case. In fact Paul may have only entered the picture once Christianity began to spread to other cities, and he considered it a danger to his brand of Judaism.

2

I don't consider it a particularly compelling argument for the historicity of Jesus that there is no contemporaneous evidence of Buddha.   After all, there were tens of thousands of witnesses to Mohammed.   I don't accept your slurs of Mohammed as having anything to do with the question of the historicity of Jesus. 

But it is rather astounding that Paul, who lived in the Jerusalem at the time of Christ and who was one of leadership structure, has nothing to say about Christ's ministry.  Nothing.

I am fairly certain that Josephus was corrupted by later interpolation.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Your concept of religion is not Mormonism.  Being a current member is not necessarily a requirement of understanding it.

And indeed, it may be some ex-Mormons who do know that line when something is no longer Mormonism.  Time and time again, from the earliest of its history, through its transitory struggles, to its most sacred covenants to modern times, Mormonism can be encapsulated in three words: "Follow the Prophet." Of course you may get by if you have your own idiosynchrosies and don't rock the boat, but step a toe out of line, appear to question the prophet, then you're a threat.

There is no need oppose prophets. They are doing the best they can, just like everyone else. They have said repeatedly that we should have our own testimonies of every principle. Blindly following the prophet is not the program regardless of what you think or you may have been taught. We must always follow our own conscience and the Holy Spirit that's the reason God gave it all to us. No prophet would disagree with that.

I am sorry you live in a distant place where leadership is weak.

That's all the more reason to follow your heart. If you have to leave the church to be a true Mormon so be it. Be your own prophet.

Edited May 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no need oppose prophets. They are doing the best they can, just like everyone else. They have said repeatedly that we should have our own testimonies of every principle. Blindly following the prophet is not the program regardless of what you think or you may have been taught. We must always follow our own conscience and the Holy Spirit that's the reason God gave it all to us. No prophet would disagree with that.

I am sorry you live in a distant place where leadership is weak.

That's all the more reason to follow your heart. If you have to leave the church to be a true Mormon so be it. Be your own prophet.

Please don't mischaracterize why I left the church. I left because of the grievous behavior of Joseph Smith.  My experience with my local leadership merely helped me to understand the nature of Joseph's sins.

There are people who were excommunicated for preaching things about the church which the church now openly acknowledges.  Principle to be learned: the priority of the church is to not rock the boat. That's the defining nature of Mormonistic identity.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes there are well known limits of both. The LDS fully accept new knowledge from science and God.

SEE Article of Faith #9  We believe all that God has revealed, all that [H]e does now reveal, and we believe that [H]e will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I actually paraphrased the ninth Article of faith in this thread today. But in this case, there is a difference between LDS practice and policy and doctrine and other doctrine.  They don't always line up.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

No.

Not 'no' about the validity of your conclusion for yourself.  I think you should trust your own experience and what you know from it.  We all need to be able to do that.

But 'no' I have not encapsulated Mormonism in those three words; nor do I suspect have most Mormons or even non-Mormons.  There are likely innumerable encapsulations that could result from individuals' experience of engaging with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

My three words of Mormonism would be more along this line: Transforming humans to charity. [Sorry, four words.]

Not to disregard the nuance of experience good, bad, and ugly that cannot be described by those three words.  But if I HAD to encapsulate (is that a good idea? encapsulating such a large, myriad, multi-pronged experience into three words? hmmmm) . . . then I like mine better than yours .  Which is why it is mine.

But knowing your encapsulation also helps me to understand the decisions you have made from it, and I can see why you would choose what you have from the starting point of those three words and what it means to you.  (I mean, only as far as I can see from your brief responses, which means I can't see much, since I don't really know you.)

 

That would be a great aim for Mormonism and I would have loved to agree with that. But I am basing observations on the entirety of Mormonism, including the leadership, those who speak for it, and how they behave in their authority, deciding who is a member and who is not.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Maidservant said:

No.

Not 'no' about the validity of your conclusion for yourself.  I think you should trust your own experience and what you know from it.  We all need to be able to do that.

But 'no' I have not encapsulated Mormonism in those three words; nor do I suspect have most Mormons or even non-Mormons.  There are likely innumerable encapsulations that could result from individuals' experience of engaging with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

My three words of Mormonism would be more along this line: Transforming humans to charity. [Sorry, four words.]

Not to disregard the nuance of experience good, bad, and ugly that cannot be described by those three words.  But if I HAD to encapsulate (is that a good idea? encapsulating such a large, myriad, multi-pronged experience into three words? hmmmm) . . . then I like mine better than yours .  Which is why it is mine.

But knowing your encapsulation also helps me to understand the decisions you have made from it, and I can see why you would choose what you have from the starting point of those three words and what it means to you.  (I mean, only as far as I can see from your brief responses, which means I can't see much, since I don't really know you.)

Those who seek to encapsulate in a few words run the risk of getting their position encapsulated as well.

But then they protest anyone doing that to them while they do exactly the same themselves.  Mischaracterizations such as "anti-Mormon" come readily to mind.  That's only one and a half words and is therefore even superior to three words so it must be better.

Gotta love that logic.

 

Go figure.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, 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.

I would suggest you learn more about the difference between science and religion.

Did you know that religion is not about science?  That the universe is really not 6 days old?

Lack of scientific knowledge has nothing to do with exercising faith.  Religion is not about facts, it is about what is important in your life.  You do not discover what is important in your life through science.  Religion is about finding what beliefs give your life meaning even for atheists.

Please read this.  Science has nothing to do with religion.  Science is about what is "penetrable" to reason, religion is about what we CANNOT "penetrate" with reason

Einstein:

Quote

To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.¹

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

Edited May 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Maidservant]

51 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

observations on the entirety of Mormonism

There is no way for you, or me, or anyone, to have observation at that level.  You and I (and anyone) can only describe the part of the elephant they have ahold of.

I'm not saying you shouldn't feel or think the way you do.  You absolutely deserve to not participate in things that violate your integrity, which is what I think I heard you express.  I respect that.

Obviously, my three words are based on my observations as well, as I ponder upon the past, present, and future of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the people who choose to be a part of it.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Maidservant said:

There is no way for you, or me, or anyone, to have observation at that level.  You and I (and anyone) can only describe the part of the elephant they have ahold of.

I'm not saying you shouldn't feel or think the way you do.  You absolutely deserve to not participate in things that violate your integrity, which is what I think I heard you express.  I respect that.

Obviously, my three words are based on my observations as well, as I ponder upon the past, present, and future of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the people who choose to be a part of it.

I mean, by "the entirety," not just the relational cosmology, but also the doctrine, history, behavior of church leadership, policy, and practices, or the best that I can know about them, that is.

I know what you mean, I think, at least to some degree.  But I'm not talking about supposed doctrinal values alone as Mormonism, for lack of a better moniker

Edited May 9, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would suggest you learn more about the difference between science and religion.

Did you know that religion is not about science?  That the universe is really not 6 days old?

Lack of scientific knowledge has nothing to do with exercising faith.  Religion is not about facts, it is about what is important in your life.  You do not discover what is important in your life through science.  Religion is about finding what beliefs give your life meaning even for atheists.

Please read this.  Science has nothing to do with religion.  Science is about what is "penetrable" to reason, religion is about what we CANNOT "penetrate" with reason

Einstein:

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

That is not consistent with Mormonism's definition of Mormonism, which is supposed to include all truth, not just "religious" truth.