Daily scripture study

[hope_for_things]

On 5/12/2017 at 11:11 PM, BlueDreams said:

Sorry, I meant to respond to this earlier, but my week got away from me. 

First, I'm ok with other people feeling spiritual influences. I expect it because of my LDS background that acknowledges that all of us on earth have an innate connection to deity. I'm also ok that specific manifestations of that may vary while maintaining a similar thread in values. There is something universal when it comes to the things that exemplify God most. Such as charity, mercy, healing, etc.  

That said, just because I believe that there is something distinctive about the the Spirit...something beyond just me and my sentiment. I have had plenty of moments in my own life, let alone other cultures, where it's difficult to hedge what is coming from my cultural background and what is actually the spirit. Culture is something that I find very intriguing. I've had close contact to several varying ones that's given me some fluidity to moving in it. I wouldn't pretend to be above culture or unaffected...but I can sense a difference to when something feels like it's "wrong" because it goes against my cultural norms and when it's "wrong" because it's the wrong direction.  Sometimes these directly conflict. Based off of my education and reactivity towards my family circumstances I've had this hyper awareness of what, statistically, would give me the best results and best chances for a healthy relationship in marriage. It is my biggest goal...to have a healthy family. Honestly, I've had moments where I'm close to paranoid about it. I can't think of anything that is more ingrained in me than this urge. Yet for years I felt prompted by the spirit to follow a course that went against this. Really against this. I hated it at times. More than at times. It was feasibly one of the most conflicting experiences. At one point I outright refused to continue this way, did my thing on my terms for about a week, fell apart from the spiritual dissonance,T and felt better when I stopped. What was spiritually "wrong" was also what was personally and culturally "right" in my head. Obviously this is anectdotal. I can't simply give evidence to spiritual experiences because the said experience in the end is deeply personal. That incongruent experience that's left me still single and still scratching my head has also changed me intrinsically in a way that has left me a better human being. More compassionate, more patient, more mature. I was in my car today, windows down, music playing, and felt this absolute joy for what was a painful experience. I have found myself grateful for my pain. It makes no sense. But it's what it is. 

The spirit for me at least, hasn't really been about alligning to social ques and expectations. But I can't speak for others in the least on this.

Thanks for sharing, and I appreciate your personal spiritual experiences.  They are life changing, have been for me as well. I can't rule out the possibility that they are guided by a higher power that is external to me.  I just haven't seen any evidence that these have to be externally driven or that there is a universal morality to this "spirit" that we can objectively measure.  I see the examples of many others who feel good feelings in doing things that I personally find immoral, and this is why I believe the spirit is truly a subjective and relative experience.  

I'm comfortable explaining my experiences as God experiences, I'm just not comfortable saying that you or everyone else should follow the interpretations created to explain my God experiences, because I recognize that everyone has a different context and life.  

On 5/12/2017 at 11:11 PM, BlueDreams said:

I find it odd to compare this to a dog. I don't see this as conditioning. I'm honestly barely following your train of thought on this one. In part because it feels very disjointed to who I am as a person. To give you an idea, I was in this group therapy session for my program and I was sharing some things. At one point the facilitator asked me how I interacted with my authority figures in my life. I looked at him quizzically and stated "I don't have authority figures." And it's true....ironically, I'm a bit anti-authority. I really struggle when someone tells me to do somthing  that I don't agree with and often flatout push back on it in one way or another. I don't listen to you simply because of a station or calling. I listen to you because I choose to. So I don't get what you're describing.  I have followed social/cultural expectations before...but it's always been a choice. Mine that I've conscientiously made at some point. From my own experiences the call to become like God to me, isn't simply about wrestling ethical dilemmas, it's about learning to heed God no matter what, trusting that doing so will bring a deeper value and meaning to life. I don't value obedience for obedience sake. I think of the story of Adam and Eve a lot when they made sacrifice without really knowing why. It was good that they were listening, but they needed to have meaning to it. They needed to seek out why things were as they were. 

There are people who probably follow all sorts of expectations and guidance from the church just because that's what's expected of them. But it doesn't mean that all do. In this thread there were several who very apparently held reasons for what they chose and followed through.  This feels like you're working from an assumed caricature of obedience, authority, and prophetic guidance. One I simply don't ascribe to.

I highly respect this approach, and admire what you're saying.  I think this is an example of mature and healthy thinking with respect to authority.  I don't think this approach is taught in Sunday Mormonism.  I think you can find it if you search hard enough, but I believe many members would be uncomfortable with this approach.  Hopefully culture will change with time.  

 

[hope_for_things]

On 5/13/2017 at 10:16 AM, mfbukowski said:

Religion is an attitude for seeking the best in ourselves and not a question of scientific investigation of a god who is "out there" like chairs and tables to be tripped over or discovered scientifically

While I personally agree with you completely, I think many conservative believers in Mormonism and other faiths believe that their religion is factually correct and does correspond to what they view as reality.  This is where many literalist faiths have done a huge disservice to the organized religious enterprise.  

On 5/13/2017 at 10:16 AM, mfbukowski said:

There are other religions in the world which might be right for certain individuals and not others at this time in their lives but this does not take away from the idea that there is ONE religion which is better for all people at all times, while allowing that some other paths will lead to the one path eventually.

I see it as the evolution of morality.  I think all societies eventually would have to come up with the Golden Rule or some formation of it in order to have a peaceful society where everyone treats all as they would like to be treated.

That sort of belief system just has survival value.  The family is the basis for all humanity and that religion which teaches that "families can be forever" as a paradigm is bound to be seen as the "only true and living church" simply because it affirms the apotheosis of the family.

I think there is no better model for religion and no better paradigm.

Could you expound on why you believe there needs to be one better path, and how that could even be evaluated?  Or is it more of a democratic process by which the one path will be evaluated as the morally superior path.  I'm open to learning what you think here and I've heard you mention this before, but I haven't understood how you come to this concept of measuring religions where you could argue for a best religion that is superior to the rest.  

Also, when you talk about the family as the basis for humanity, I'm assuming you're doing that within a 21st century Mormon concept of a "traditional family", rather than a 19th century Mormon polygamist traditional family, or polyandrous family, or perhaps today a homosexual family.  It seems to me that this concept of family is quite fluid over time and culture, and I personally don't have a problem with that, but I'm thinking you might preference the 21st century conservative Mormon "traditional family" over other versions, and similar to your idea about religion, you may consider one definition for family as superior to others.  

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

While I personally agree with you completely, I think many conservative believers in Mormonism and other faiths believe that their religion is factually correct and does correspond to what they view as reality.  This is where many literalist faiths have done a huge disservice to the organized religious enterprise.  

Could you expound on why you believe there needs to be one better path, and how that could even be evaluated?  Or is it more of a democratic process by which the one path will be evaluated as the morally superior path.  I'm open to learning what you think here and I've heard you mention this before, but I haven't understood how you come to this concept of measuring religions where you could argue for a best religion that is superior to the rest.  

Also, when you talk about the family as the basis for humanity, I'm assuming you're doing that within a 21st century Mormon concept of a "traditional family", rather than a 19th century Mormon polygamist traditional family, or polyandrous family, or perhaps today a homosexual family.  It seems to me that this concept of family is quite fluid over time and culture, and I personally don't have a problem with that, but I'm thinking you might preference the 21st century conservative Mormon "traditional family" over other versions, and similar to your idea about religion, you may consider one definition for family as superior to others.  

 

I am not concerned about what literalists think about Mormonism.  I think they are wrong.

I have come to my conclusions about the idea morality mostly by reading Kant

I highly suggest you at least read this wikipedia article about Kant's moral theories   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

I think it follows from this statement : Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

It's a bit like your mother asking you "What if everybody acted that way?"

I am not going to debate the values- they have been considered universal values for hundreds of years.  Debate with Kant if you want to argue that point of view- I agree with Kant.

Civilization itself requires certain characteristics of culture and I think the test of universifiabilty is a strong challenge to lifestyles.

If everyone was homosexual, the view says that civilization would not survive.  If everyone was polygamist, the view states that is not optimal.  In short, yes it is an affirmation of traditional values but there is a reason those values are traditional

They have worked for humanity for millions of years and have evolved because they work

They are found in the Didache from the First Century as well as the "Way of Life"

Disagree if you like- but that is their basis.  Those are my values- justify your own if you can.

Edited May 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If everyone was homosexual, the view says that civilization would not survive.

If everyone was male, civilization would not survive.  Does that make it immoral to be male?

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If everyone was male, civilization would not survive.  Does that make it immoral to be male?

Oh my gosh.  Is your logical ability really that poor?  Do I really have to show you how that is nothing like what I said?  Is being male an action?

Quote

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

And the categorical imperative is far more complex than that

And I said that my view is BASED on the categorical imperative.

Edited May 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.  Is your logical ability really that poor?  Do I really have to show you how that is nothing like what I said?  Is being male an action?

And the categorical imperative is far more complex than that

And I said that my view is BASED on the categorical imperative.

Being a homosexual isn't an action either.  It is no more a choice than being male.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can...

For the most part, a homosexual can only be a homosexual.  They can't be straight.

...will that it should become a universal law.

Encouraging homosexuals to be anything other than what their nature dictates, would be a failure as a universal moral law.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Being a homosexual isn't an action either.  It is no more a choice than being male.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can...

For the most part, a homosexual can only be a homosexual.  They can't be straight.

...will that it should become a universal law.

Encouraging homosexuals to be anything other than what their nature dictates, would be a failure as a universal moral law.

Behavior

And there is no such thing as "nature".  Nature is not behavior even if there was such a thing.  The concept of nature is a virtus dormitiva

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Being a homosexual isn't an action either.  It is no more a choice than being male.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can...

For the most part, a homosexual can only be a homosexual.  They can't be straight.

...will that it should become a universal law.

Encouraging homosexuals to be anything other than what their nature dictates, would be a failure as a universal moral law.

Fine so we should all act as homosexuals and society would thrive

Great conclusion

Write it up as a universal law

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Behavior

And there is no such thing as "nature".  Nature is not behavior even if there was such a thing.  The concept of nature is a virtus dormitiva

Having everyone behave counter to their sexual orientation doesn't sound like a good universal law to me.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Fine so we should all act as homosexuals and society would thrive

Great conclusion

Write it up as a universal law

That's shallow thinking... A heterosexual can't be a homosexual.  A homosexual can't be a heterosexual.  Generally speaking.  To apply Kant's theory to suggest that anyone should act counter to their sexual orientation doesn't seem like the best moral theory.  "Act only according to the maxim whereby you can..."  When gay men marry straight women the failure rate is horrible.  Do we want to make that a universal law?  Is that moral?

The universal law shouldn't be that we all act as homosexuals, it should be that we all act in accordance with our sexual orientation.  In moral ways, obviously, that would fit in with the categorical imperative.

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing, and I appreciate your personal spiritual experiences.  They are life changing, have been for me as well. I can't rule out the possibility that they are guided by a higher power that is external to me.  I just haven't seen any evidence that these have to be externally driven or that there is a universal morality to this "spirit" that we can objectively measure.  I see the examples of many others who feel good feelings in doing things that I personally find immoral, and this is why I believe the spirit is truly a subjective and relative experience.  

I'm comfortable explaining my experiences as God experiences, I'm just not comfortable saying that you or everyone else should follow the interpretations created to explain my God experiences, because I recognize that everyone has a different context and life.   

 

I think I've found that for some when I dig into the immoral choices they feel good about....it's more complicated than the simplified message they're initially giving me. So I definitely don't think that every time someone claims the spirit guided them towards this or that that I initially believe it or make it universal. 

I think part of my God-experiences do have focus and emphasis on community building....on creating zion. In doing so at some point I have to believe that other can have answers or experiences that isn't just for them but for others as well. I think the core LDS doctrine gives a balance and method that allows for this with minimal abuse in both excess individualism and leaning to strongly into blind obedience and/or authoritarianism. But because we are people, we still can error into both categories. 

 

Quote

I highly respect this approach, and admire what you're saying.  I think this is an example of mature and healthy thinking with respect to authority.  I don't think this approach is taught in Sunday Mormonism.  I think you can find it if you search hard enough, but I believe many members would be uncomfortable with this approach.  Hopefully culture will change with time.

I don't thinks this is necessarily an example of maturity or healthy thinking. Particularly since where it originated from was from a dysfunctional family that led to me being parentified and having minimal respect for my parents at the time. I think of it as a differing experience. And like all experiences left imbalanced it can be a problem. And at times it's definitely been out of balanced in my own life. It has had to be balanced out by finding respect for leaders and learning to have respect for authority to an extent. I think that it is found in mormonism...even Sunday mormonism. When I grew up I gravitated to these messages....knowing for yourself what is true or not, following the Spirit no matter what, etc. But it can be quashed by cultural expectations that may give more weight to messages that hold a respect for authority that is imbalanced and overreaching. 

 

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Having everyone behave counter to their sexual orientation doesn't sound like a good universal law to me.

I don't recall saying that

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's shallow thinking... A heterosexual can't be a homosexual.  A homosexual can't be a heterosexual.  Generally speaking.  To apply Kant's theory to suggest that anyone should act counter to their sexual orientation doesn't seem like the best moral theory.  "Act only according to the maxim whereby you can..."  When gay men marry straight women the failure rate is horrible.  Do we want to make that a universal law?  Is that moral?

The universal law shouldn't be that we all act as homosexuals, it should be that we all act in accordance with our sexual orientation.  In moral ways, obviously, that would fit in with the categorical imperative.

I never said they could

Perhaps a reading comprehension course is called for

If you think that is the best for society go ahead and advocate that- who's stopping you?  Not me.  Oddly enough I am not the dictator of the universe, I am a libertarian.

All I said was that if everyone acted as a homosexual that would not be good for civilization.  I don't know where you get your conclusions

 

Edited May 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not concerned about what literalists think about Mormonism.  I think they are wrong.

I have come to my conclusions about the idea morality mostly by reading Kant

I highly suggest you at least read this wikipedia article about Kant's moral theories   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

I think it follows from this statement : Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

It's a bit like your mother asking you "What if everybody acted that way?"

I am not going to debate the values- they have been considered universal values for hundreds of years.  Debate with Kant if you want to argue that point of view- I agree with Kant.

Civilization itself requires certain characteristics of culture and I think the test of universifiabilty is a strong challenge to lifestyles.

If everyone was homosexual, the view says that civilization would not survive.  

You are acting as if a morality based on Kant forbids homosexuality. Rockpond is just rightly pointing out it does no such thing. If we adopt the maxim that everyone should act based on their innate orientation civilization  goes on and we avoid the problems of mixed orientation marriages. 

Edited May 16, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I never said they could

Perhaps a reading comprehension course is called for

If you think that is the best for society go ahead and advocate that- who's stopping you?  Not me.  Oddly enough I am not the dictator of the universe, I am a libertarian.

All I said was that if everyone acted as a homosexual that would not be good for civilization.  I don't know where you get your conclusions

 

Okay... so your application of Kant's Categorial Imperative is that it is moral for a homosexual to act as a homosexual?  Is that what you were saying?  Or something else?

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are acting as if a morality based on Kant forbids homosexuality. Rockpond is just rightly pointing out it does no such thing. If we adopt the maxim that everyone should act based on their innate orientation circulation goes on and we avoid the problems of mixed orientation marriages. 

you have the rockpond disease

Do you dispute what I actually said?

Quote

If everyone was homosexual, the view says that civilization would not survive.  

You are hardly seeking understanding.

Edited May 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

you have the rockpond disease

Do you dispute what I actually said?

You are hardly seeking understanding.

How can everyone be homosexual? You either are or you aren't. 

[mfbukowski]

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/182

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How can everyone be homosexual? You either are or you aren't. 

There are these books?  You know- like they have pages and stuff?

Pick one up that has the word "Dictionary" on the spine and look up the word "IF"

Now for the big word- maybe look this one up too:

"Hypothetical"

It's kind of like saying IF you killed somebody would it be wrong?   I am not asking you to kill someone so please do not, ok?  I am also not saying that everyone should kill someone

Is that clear?

How about reminding you that I am also NOT saying that it was possible for everyone to kill someone.

I know IF can be a very tricky word, but concentrate, I know you can do this.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There are these books?  You know- like they have pages and stuff?

Pick one up that has the word "Dictionary" on the spine and look up the word "IF"

Now for the big word- maybe look this one up too:

"Hypothetical"

It's kind of like saying IF you killed somebody would it be wrong?   I am not asking you to kill someone so please do not, ok?  I am also not saying that everyone should kill someone

Is that clear?

How about reminding you that I am also NOT saying that it was possible for everyone to kill someone.

I know IF can be a very tricky word, but concentrate, I know you can do this.

You can stop.  It really just seems like you are trying to back away from what you wrote without admitting that you may have been wrong.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There are these books?  You know- like they have pages and stuff?

Pick one up that has the word "Dictionary" on the spine and look up the word "IF"

Now for the big word- maybe look this one up too:

"Hypothetical"

It's kind of like saying IF you killed somebody would it be wrong?   I am not asking you to kill someone so please do not, ok?  I am also not saying that everyone should kill someone

Is that clear?

How about reminding you that I am also NOT saying that it was possible for everyone to kill someone.

I know IF can be a very tricky word, but concentrate, I know you can do this.

So if God made everyone a homosexual that would be a problem for civilization. We are in agreement. Same as if God made everyone male/female/asexual. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You can stop.  It really just seems like you are trying to back away from what you wrote without admitting that you may have been wrong.

I was exactly right, you just can't read.

This is not something I have just dreamed up- I have been thinking about this 40 years now

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So if God made everyone a homosexual that would be a problem for civilization. We are in agreement. Same as if God made everyone male/female/asexual. 

If God made everybody any particular way we would not even have the categories.  We categorize differences not similarities.  It's like saying "If God created everyone without heads, that would be a problem for civilization"

We would not be "us" and we would not need what we call "heads".   After all if God created all of us with gizzards it would still be wrong to kill each other.  Having an inborn characteristic has nothing to do with morality.

It's like multiplying both sides of an equation by 1.  It's a distinction without a difference. 

The moral problem arises with differences in behavior, not physical characteristics

AND you are still talking about people, physical characteristics,  and not behaviors.

Incredible.

Ever notice that "sin" is a behavior?   It is by definition a behavior destructive to society.  We are not born with sins

Edited May 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was exactly right, you just can't read.

This is not something I have just dreamed up- I have been thinking about this 40 years now

Okay, then feel free to answer the clarifying questions that we've asked, rather than dodging them:

Mine was:  So your application of Kant's Categorial Imperative is that it is moral for a homosexual to act as a homosexual?  Is that what you were saying?  Or something else?

[hope_for_things]

On 5/14/2017 at 0:20 AM, mfbukowski said:

Please read this to understand me better if nothing else

You can view it on TED here or read the transcript below

https://www.ted.com/talks/matthew_o_reilly_am_i_dying_the_honest_answer/transcript?language=en

UNDERSTAND the NEEDS of people who are dying.

They are not worried about doctrine

They are not worried about evidence

They are not worried about if God even exists.

They are not worried about explanations of theology 

All they want is PURELY SUBJECTIVE answers!   All they want is 1- Relief from Guilt (The Atonement)  2- To be Remembered 3- That their life had meaning.

Those are the EMOTIONAL SUBJECTIVE needs that religion gives the answer for.  Religion gives us peace- the quest is for what gives your life meaning, not the explanation of the history of the atonement or any mechanics whatsoever.

Thanks for sharing that talk, I found it very thought provoking.  I think what it seems to express are possibly universal human feelings, but it would be interesting to have similar observations come from different cultures to better understand how they experience these last few minutes of life faced with the knowledge that they are dying.  

1. Relief from guilt.  I think religion unfortunately has a large role to play with inducing guilt in the first place.  By creating a feeling of guilt and then providing the solution that is a powerful motivator for belief in that construct.  I'm not sure an atonement is the only answer for providing relief from guilt.  Other religions address guilt as well, and I'm thinking atheists I've met aren't overburdened by guilt either.  I'm fine with people finding comfort in the atonement, but I'm not sure its the only way to find relief from guilt. 

I would argue for all these things that religion helps to comfort are just one of the many possible comforts that people can receive to these yearnings.  I guess I just don't think its the only answer or necessarily the best answer.