Stargazer Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 6 hours ago, RevTestament said: While true for the Gentiles, this may not always be so. Yeshua tells us that He Himself will be among His people in the Millennium. This tells me that prayers will be answered directly, and not through the Holy Spirit. But otherwise, yes, I agree. However, I also find it useful to study out the scriptures, and what others have said. Oftentimes someone's interpretation just strikes me as truth. This has happened more times than I can count. When that happens I often don't even feel the need to pray about it. The witness of its truth is just immediate and powerful. Agreed, and this has happened to me from time to time, too. Although I will say that during the Millennium I don't think that Christ will be making personal visitations every time someone asks a question or requests a blessing in prayer. Even when He was upon Earth in a mortal state the Spirit was in operation. Else why would he tell Peter, when Peter proclaimed that He was the Messiah, that "...flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven"? And how else, except through the Holy Spirit?
Stargazer Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You have no clue your brilliance in this philosophy stuff is a hundred years old. I think you need to stop listening to the idiots on the boards and get some education. Read some Kuhn and Polanyi but I doubt you will even read this wacko-pedia version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn Figure out what Wittgenstein meant by Language Games I am blinded by your hubris. A defender of the wall? Do you have eyes? Half the people here think I am a relativistic atheist. The wall has already fallen- I am building the new one brick by brick. You are just a hundred years behind and don't even see it. 5 hours ago, RevTestament said: If I may hft, I see you making progress. I think mfb is just trying to get you to stop looking at religion and scripture through scientific lenses. He is trying to get you to throw those away.... at least in matters of religion. If I recall a debate with you, you were fairly insistent on relying on what modern scholars say about the NT based on their textual analysis. I too probably seemed a little impatient, but I just was trying to wrest you away from that mentality of analytical analysis. If it helps at all, you have stuck with mfb for longer than I expected, so good for you. If you can get where he is coming from at least, I think it will help you in the long run. If I may chime in, I find Mark a bit hard to follow, especially when he starts stirring the pot Wittgenstein-style about language. I think my measured IQ is about ten points too low to follow him, and I wish I could rise to that level. A few months ago, my wife and I spent a very nice afternoon with Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Gui, scoping out Seattle's waterfront, and it became clear that Bernard understood where Mark is coming from, so I will defer to my betters, like him and you, Rev, on figuring out what he's saying. But whether I can follow him or not, I tend to feel he knows what he is talking about. Most of the time, anyway. On the other hand, he might need to lighten up a bit. No point in dumping on hope_for_things like that. Vinegar and honey, Mark! 1
USU78 Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 57 minutes ago, USU78 said: The linguistic problem is that there is no verb form for "G-d." Homo sapiens is thinking man. Homo ludens is playing man. How does a man "g-d?" We are strangers in a strange land. The problem is in the conception of G-d. If G-d is unmoving, He is simply nominative. If, on the other hand, He moves and does and makes and lives and loves, His activity, which is what He does, requires a verb that encompasses what He does. He "G-ds."
RevTestament Posted June 29, 2017 Author Posted June 29, 2017 27 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Agreed, and this has happened to me from time to time, too. Although I will say that during the Millennium I don't think that Christ will be making personal visitations every time someone asks a question or requests a blessing in prayer. Joseph Smith (President) While in conversation at Judge Adams' during the evening, I said, Christ and the resurrected Saints will reign over the earth during the thousand years. They will not probably dwell upon the earth, but will visit it when they please, or when it is necessary to govern it. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.268) I have heard the voice of the Lord literally in my mind. I don't know if He needs the Holy Spirit to do that or not, but He does have His own Spirit. Jesus does not need to be here bodily to direct His servants and rule. Just because He dwells in a physical tabernacle does not necessarily mean His spirit is limited to it. Quote Even when He was upon Earth in a mortal state the Spirit was in operation. Else why would he tell Peter, when Peter proclaimed that He was the Messiah, that "...flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven"? And how else, except through the Holy Spirit? I don't know, but the Lord may have various ways to communicate. i won't limit that to the Holy Spirit.
RevTestament Posted June 29, 2017 Author Posted June 29, 2017 30 minutes ago, Stargazer said: If I may chime in, I find Mark a bit hard to follow, especially when he starts stirring the pot Wittgenstein-style about language. I think my measured IQ is about ten points too low to follow him, and I wish I could rise to that level. A few months ago, my wife and I spent a very nice afternoon with Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Gui, scoping out Seattle's waterfront, and it became clear that Bernard understood where Mark is coming from, so I will defer to my betters, like him and you, Rev, on figuring out what he's saying. But whether I can follow him or not, I tend to feel he knows what he is talking about. Most of the time, anyway. On the other hand, he might need to lighten up a bit. No point in dumping on hope_for_things like that. Vinegar and honey, Mark! I hope hft doesn't feel like I'm dumping on him. I am not a philosopher, so I don't follow Mark when he starts spouting off the philosophies of various philosophers. However, I don't think I need to be a philosopher to understand what he is saying. It really is not that complex. He is just saying to live what is useful and beautiful to you, and to stop worrying about if it "really happened" such and such a way. He is saying all history is interpreted by us. So what is "real" is only what we choose to live by. That is what is real to us. It is what gives our life meaning - it is what motivates us. When He found "Mormonism" it aligned with this philosophy. For example, he is saying people that have a melt-down and leave the Church because they found out JS had multiple wives are destroying their lives and their happiness over someone's interpretation of reality that is not 100% accurate since it has already gone through someone's filtering process of actual reality. None of us can know exactly what happened with Joseph Smith, because none of us are God. We are forced to try to ascertain "truth" through other people's filter of history. I have never even prayed about the issue. JS was a sinner like the rest of us, and I am not his judge. I find truth in the restored gospel. When I discovered it, it sang in my soul. Now my testimony of it is complete. I could never believe anything else. I live the gospel because I see it all over the scriptures. Because I now it is true for me. Not because some scholar has decided that it is "the truth according to history." It is truth in my own personal experience. I tested it, and it has continued to fill all the crevices, nooks and crannies. If I had decided to live my life or believe a certain way because the scholars and experts agreed something else is true, I would have never arrived where I am at. I will leave all the scholars and experts behind, and they will close their mouths when they are left behind. But until then I am content to live MY truth rather than theirs. That is the gist of what Mark is saying. 2
Guest Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 On June 23, 2017 at 1:27 PM, RevTestament said: An idea from someone who says this is why he no longer believes. He says Yeshua left a mess, so we end up with conflicting accounts, and it is just not divine. I believe the answer to this is going to be purely speculative, but are there any good reasons why Yeshua would not write anything as the Father's true representative? My belief is that everything Yeshua did here was to teach us. Part of the teaching process is to value the word of God, so He left it for men to write, to learn to value what was written. That in actuality the apostles were foreordained to this task, and in a sense share in the glory of God in performing it. Like Yeshua they are serving their fellow men in the very act of writing His words and copying them so other men can have them. I do not believe there are any conflicts which are important to the teaching. There may be some conflict in the order of events and so forth, but this is inconsequential to the teachings contained therein. What do you think? He is "The Word", every word of scripture and every revelation comes from him. The words of the OT (especially Proverbs, and Isaiah) were his words. What more could he write than he had already had written? Your friend, left or stopped believing for the wrong reason. Every word of inspired scripture are Jesus (Joshua's) words.
RevTestament Posted June 29, 2017 Author Posted June 29, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I'd like to think we can learn from critical analysis. I did mention the gospels weren't written by eye witnesses and are literary works, not historical accounts earlier I believe. The authors of those gospels were constructing a narrative of Jesus as the anointed one and reading his story back into earlier OT texts. Pretty mainstream biblical scholarship, but there I go again.... Mainstream is, is mainstream does. That iron rod gets slippery and the great and spacious building has lots of room for mainstreamers. 1
RevTestament Posted June 29, 2017 Author Posted June 29, 2017 1 hour ago, USU78 said: The problem is in the conception of G-d. If G-d is unmoving, He is simply nominative. If, on the other hand, He moves and does and makes and lives and loves, His activity, which is what He does, requires a verb that encompasses what He does. He "G-ds." The Hebrew is a language of action. His titles describe what He is being for us in the Hebrew. The English translations lose that nuance. When I began to see this, and understand His titles/names, it just seemed the scriptures began to open themselves more before my eyes. 1
RevTestament Posted June 29, 2017 Author Posted June 29, 2017 20 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: He is "The Word", every word of scripture and every revelation comes from him. The words of the OT (especially Proverbs, and Isaiah) were his words. What more could he write than he had already had written? Your friend, left or stopped believing for the wrong reason. Every word of inspired scripture are Jesus (Joshua's) words. Luke 4:4 4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That aman shall not live by bread alone, but by everyword of God. And from your aforementioned favorite, Proverbs: Proverbs 30:5 5 Every word of God is apure: he is a bshield unto them that put their trust in him. 1
USU78 Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 15 minutes ago, RevTestament said: The Hebrew is a language of action. His titles describe what He is being for us in the Hebrew. The English translations lose that nuance. When I began to see this, and understand His titles/names, it just seemed the scriptures began to open themselves more before my eyes. Thank you! I have very little Hebrew, and what you just shared is highly important. Our language is in thrall to medieval neoplatonists
MiserereNobis Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 21 minutes ago, USU78 said: Our language is in thrall to medieval neoplatonists Ahhh, the good ol' days... "If I Could Live In Any Decade, It Would Definitely Be The 960s" 1
Stargazer Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 5 hours ago, Teancum said: I think you are doing mental gymnastics to justify your faith in spite of the evidence. There is no reason not to expect Jesus to write his teachings. To leave it to others who wrote many years after his death seems negligent. One reason he likely did not write is because he believed he was an apocalyptic prophet and ushering in the end times and Kingdom of God on earth. So why write? As for conflicts, well the Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke are wildly different from the Jesus of John. Why is that? The conflict is easily resolved. Or explained at least. If two different people would attempt to describe you, based on your posts here on this board, would they seem to describe the same person? I doubt it. But it wouldn't make you fictional. 4
RevTestament Posted June 29, 2017 Author Posted June 29, 2017 48 minutes ago, USU78 said: Thank you! I have very little Hebrew, and what you just shared is highly important. Our language is in thrall to medieval neoplatonists Here are some examples: YHWH - letter by letter means Behold the nail, behold the hand. I believe the name YHWH means I am the breath/life/word. This is a name Yeshua had inherited probably when the Father told Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."I believe the Son is not El Elyon, the Most High Power, and does not share that title with Heavenly Father as yet, and thus says, the Father is greater than I. However, I disagree with Orthodoxy that El Shaddai is the Father. I believe Yeshua is telling us in John 8:58 that He is El Shaddai and is referring to Gen 17:1, and is the Power who weans us from the breast(Hebrew=shad; dai=enough). I believe Yeshua and the Father are one/echad LORD/YHWH, and as Gen 3:22 indicate are both YHWH Elohim or the I am of the life of your house of immovable forces. Lastly, I believe others will inherit this name per Jeremiah:Jeremiah 33:16-17 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord/YHWH our righteousness.
hope_for_things Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: Mainstream is, is mainstream does. That iron rod gets slippery and the great and spacious building has lots of room for mainstreamers. Well this is certainly not critical thinking that's for sure.
Honorentheos Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 On 6/27/2017 at 11:18 AM, mfbukowski said: So you are missing on two points: 1- the purpose of religion and 2- the nature of history as non-objective So yes of course one finds our salvation based on the salvation which is sought. That is the goal. The Ideal Human within us teaches us to create meaning in our lives where none exists at first. That is secularese for the Mormon statement: (Moroni 10) and that our Human Ideal Being (God) within us creates our world "from matter unorganized" This works just fine also I really don't have time to fully engage you here again, but I do wish you well in your search. I would argue quite the opposite. My point relied directly on the comment that if one is examining the question from a religious perogative one will arrive at an answer that will be different from if one examines the question from a historical perogative. Your mistake is in confusing the use of historical myth in place of history to arrive at something that one can claim both fulfills one's spiritual needs AND is coherently investigated using the tools of the historian. So, no need to engage me. The confusion was all yours, friend.
MiserereNobis Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) On 6/27/2017 at 0:18 PM, mfbukowski said: It ain't my job in life to find what's important to anyone else but me But you're always here trying to push your interpretation of what's important onto the rest of us... if you really believed this statement of yours, wouldn't you just leave us all alone in our blissful neoplatonism...? On 6/27/2017 at 0:18 PM, mfbukowski said: The Ideal Human within us teaches us to create meaning in our lives where none exists at first. You sound like you're paraphrasing Satre here, so just to clarify: from your point-of-view, Mormonism is existentialism? (you must get attacked from both ends of the spectrum... academics attacking you for being Mormon, Mormons attacking you for being a philosopher. Kudos to you, Mark!) Edited June 29, 2017 by MiserereNobis
The Nehor Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Well this is certainly not critical thinking that's for sure. Critical thinking is overrated. We definitely overrate our ability to use it wisely and the extent of the knowledge on which we base our enlightened critical thoughts.
RevTestament Posted June 29, 2017 Author Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Well this is certainly not critical thinking that's for sure. Let's just say I have concluded that the "experts" are wrong too many times for me to put much faith in them hft. The list is long. If you want to believe them I cannot stop you, but you then are cutting yourself off from many other possibilities. Experts themselves no longer believe what prior experts believed. And you really want me to believe that now they finally have it all right? Tomorrow they may believe something totally different based upon one archaeological find/manuscript/ruin, etc. Yet they make all these conclusions which you are calling "truth" because there is no evidence yet for something else. The problem is lack of evidence doesn't mean something is not true. What if tomorrow they dig up horse DNA from 1 AD Missouri? Did you know that horse bones have been found in cave strata in Mexico dating to BoM times? Why do you not hear that? Because it goes against the commonly accepted "truth" that horses did not exist in the Americas anywhere near BoM times. But it sure puts a different light on the commonly accepted "archaeological truth" that the BoM is just made-up baloney. More finds will just make the case all the more compelling. While that's nice I personally didn't know or need that "truth" to believe the BoM was true because I had received a witness that it was. Now my witness is beginning to get corroborated. In the future the present accepted "truth" of the mainstream will become falsehood. I just am beating the mainstream scholars and experts who demand evidence before they will believe. Edited June 29, 2017 by RevTestament 2
hope_for_things Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: He is just saying to live what is useful and beautiful to you, and to stop worrying about if it "really happened" such and such a way. He is saying all history is interpreted by us. So what is "real" is only what we choose to live by. That is what is real to us. It is what gives our life meaning - it is what motivates us. Thanks again Rev for sharing your perspective about what MFB might be saying, you could be right. Just a couple thoughts from me. On this part, personally I don't have the angst I had earlier in my faith journey. I'm going back to church now. I don't feel worried about learning whether something really happened or not anymore. I'm interested in the scholarship because I feel like I'm learning valuable things that are interesting to me as I like to explore historicity and original intent of the authors and the changes and theological evolution we've seen. None of this is because of worry on my part anymore. I think I'm through the deconstruction phase and I'm in the rebuilding phase of my faith journey, and finding some nice successes along the way these days. 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: For example, he is saying people that have a melt-down and leave the Church because they found out JS had multiple wives are destroying their lives and their happiness over someone's interpretation of reality that is not 100% accurate since it has already gone through someone's filtering process of actual reality. This part is sad to me. I think we need to be careful not to shame people who leave the church. The church's missionary message is taught in literal black and white terms, so if someone learns that those terms are not what they were taught, I completely respect them leaving, and its unfair and inaccurate to say that this is destroying lives or happiness. Many people that leave are super happy and their lives are wonderful. These kinds of shaming games that tribes use as boundary maintenance tactics are really immature and dishonest. (I'm not pointing the blame at you Rev or at MFB, but rather at the culture that this kind of tribalism has created.) 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: None of us can know exactly what happened with Joseph Smith, because none of us are God. We are forced to try to ascertain "truth" through other people's filter of history. I don't agree, we can know through the tools of history much about someone as well documented as JS. We can't know 100%, but we can know enough to make reasonable judgments. Conversely if we can't know the bad, then we equally can't know the good, so all those faith promoting experiences are equally likely to be false using this paradigm of we can't know. 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: JS was a sinner like the rest of us, and I am not his judge. I find truth in the restored gospel. When I discovered it, it sang in my soul. Now my testimony of it is complete. I could never believe anything else. I live the gospel because I see it all over the scriptures. Because I now it is true for me. Not because some scholar has decided that it is "the truth according to history." It is truth in my own personal experience. I tested it, and it has continued to fill all the crevices, nooks and crannies. If I had decided to live my life or believe a certain way because the scholars and experts agreed something else is true, I would have never arrived where I am at. I will leave all the scholars and experts behind, and they will close their mouths when they are left behind. But until then I am content to live MY truth rather than theirs. That is the gist of what Mark is saying. I totally respect and affirm what you've said here. This is your testimony and it works for you and it is beautiful. I'm glad for you and if this explains MFB's perspective I'm glad for him as well. All I can really say is that I have a different experience. But that is the spice of life, we all have unique traits and personalities with tendencies and ways of thinking that make this wonderful world go round. I have a highly analytical brain, I question lots of things, I do this for my profession as well and these skills serve me well as I'm able to find anomalies in data and pick out erroneous decision making through using critical thinking skills. Until a few years back, I always put the church and my beliefs in it up on a pedestal and never applied my critical thinking to it because I believed it unequivocally true in a very literal sense. When I started applying my analytical thinking skills to the church's truth claims everything quickly crumbled as far as literal truth is concerned. But because of my very pragmatic and optimistic personality traits I realized somewhere along the way that after I was done deconstructing the myths of my religious upbringing, that I might still find meaning in it through a more metaphorical approach. And that brings me to my current journey. I've found great inspiration largely through non-LDS Christians like Marcus Borg, Peter Enns, Mike McHargue, Richard Rohr, John Shelby Spong. What all of these people have in common and what I find meaningful to me is they've all had a faith deconstruction and then a rebirth through a metaphorical approach to religion. They don't all agree on every perspective, some are more mystical than others, but I'm trying to learn from their experiences and I'm finding value in this endeavor. And ultimately all I'm looking for from MFB is some acknowledgment that my approach is legitimate for me. He doesn't have to agree with my thinking or even fully understand it, I don't fully agree or understand his that's for sure. He can think in his heart of hearts that eventually I'll see the light and realize how my earlier thinking was flawed, and thats fine. Honestly I'm sure in 10 years from now my perspectives on many aspects of life will be different. If they are the same as today then I will have failed in a very important aspect of life and that is the call to learning and study and growth. My current beliefs are just how I feel today and I reserve the right to change tomorrow. Anyway, thanks for indulging me.
hope_for_things Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 18 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Let's just say I have concluded that the "experts" are wrong too many times for me to put much faith in them hft. The list is long. If you want to believe them I cannot stop you, but you then are cutting yourself off from many other possibilities. Experts themselves no longer believe what prior experts believed. And you really want me to believe that now they finally have it all right? Tomorrow they may believe something totally different based upon one archaeological find/manuscript/ruin, etc. Yet they make all these conclusions which you are calling "truth" because there is no evidence yet for something else. The problem is lack of evidence doesn't mean something is not true. What if tomorrow they dig up horse DNA from 1 AD Missouri? Did you know that horse bones have been found in cave strata in Mexico dating to BoM times? Why do you not hear that? Because it goes against the commonly accepted "truth" that horses did not exist in the Americas anywhere near BoM times. But it sure puts a different light on the commonly accepted "archaeological truth" that the BoM is just made-up baloney. More finds will just make the case all the more compelling. While that's nice I personally didn't know or need that "truth" to believe the BoM was true because I had received a witness that it was. Now my witness is beginning to get corroborated. In the future the present accepted "truth" of the mainstream will become falsehood. I just am beating the mainstream scholars and experts who demand evidence before they will believe. In principle I agree with you that experts do get things wrong, but everyone has to put their trust in experts because its impossible to know everything there is to know about every subject out there to make a highly informed decision on various subjects. In what other disciplines do you feel comfortable ignoring or disagreeing with the experts? Perhaps Medicine, or aeronautics, or you name it, what other disciplines do you think you know better than the experts and feel free to ignore their well researched findings? You're right that findings will change over time and new paradigm shifts will occur as the conventional wisdom is challenged and new insights emerge (see I did read the Kuhn's scientific revolutions ideas in that article MFB.) But just because new insights are ultimately going to change our perspectives in the future, doesn't mean we reject the best hypothesis that are out there today. And we should be careful about the human tendency to hold onto ideas that don't hold up to scrutiny just to support some outdated religious dogmas that some earlier person was just speculating on anyway.
RevTestament Posted June 29, 2017 Author Posted June 29, 2017 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks again Rev for sharing your perspective about what MFB might be saying, you could be right. Just a couple thoughts from me. On this part, personally I don't have the angst I had earlier in my faith journey. I'm going back to church now. I don't feel worried about learning whether something really happened or not anymore. I'm interested in the scholarship because I feel like I'm learning valuable things that are interesting to me as I like to explore historicity and original intent of the authors and the changes and theological evolution we've seen. None of this is because of worry on my part anymore. I think I'm through the deconstruction phase and I'm in the rebuilding phase of my faith journey, and finding some nice successes along the way these days. I had my own sabbatical or journey without the Church, so I understand the need to make sense of it all. I am just saying there are different ways to do that other than the critical analysis approach. Rather than relying on what the Church tells me, although that set me in the right direction, I rely on what the scriptures tell me. I am perfectly fine with the fact that others interpret them differently than me. Quote This part is sad to me. I think we need to be careful not to shame people who leave the church. The church's missionary message is taught in literal black and white terms, so if someone learns that those terms are not what they were taught, I completely respect them leaving, and its unfair and inaccurate to say that this is destroying lives or happiness. Many people that leave are super happy and their lives are wonderful. These kinds of shaming games that tribes use as boundary maintenance tactics are really immature and dishonest. (I'm not pointing the blame at you Rev or at MFB, but rather at the culture that this kind of tribalism has created.) I was speaking in generalities. I am definitely not trying to shame anyone who has doubts or has left the Church. I am simply going by the ones who describe a faith crisis, who are angry at the Church, who end up getting divorced, etc. Maybe they feel liberated, but that is not what I read them describing in their "crisis." I left the Church for awhile. I don't feel it caused me any crisis, but I am different from many cases I guess. Quote I don't agree, we can know through the tools of history much about someone as well documented as JS. We can't know 100%, but we can know enough to make reasonable judgments. Conversely if we can't know the bad, then we equally can't know the good, so all those faith promoting experiences are equally likely to be false using this paradigm of we can't know. Let's just give an example. My father acquired a book on the Spalding Manuscipt. When I asked him what troubled him as he departed the Church, this was a main thing he brought up. It presented a "history" of how Sidney Rigdon had every opportunity to steal the manuscript, and affidavits of how this manuscript was practically exactly like the BoM. The thing is the book left out the history that the affidavits were collected by a man excommunicated from the Church. Long story short, a manuscript written by Spalding did eventually show up in Hawaii, and can now be read at Oberlin College. Guess what? It is essentially nothing like the BoM except describing a Romanish people journeying to the Americas, and having religious battles and quoting some scriptures. In fact other books of the day such as A View of the Hebrews would make a more logical case for plagiarism, and it became the new default after the "History" of the Spalding manuscript got debunked. That story just goes to show how history gets manipulated and twisted. While it is an egregious case, the fact is no one can KNOW history. Even what I think I know goes through my personal filters of hearing, remembering, etc. We try to minimize such problems by relying on multiple "reliable" sources. But often differing sources will give widely varying accounts especially in cases of controversial figures such as Joseph Smith. That is the problem. What history chooses to call a marriage, may have just been a Celestial sealing. Quote I totally respect and affirm what you've said here. This is your testimony and it works for you and it is beautiful. I'm glad for you and if this explains MFB's perspective I'm glad for him as well. All I can really say is that I have a different experience. But that is the spice of life, we all have unique traits and personalities with tendencies and ways of thinking that make this wonderful world go round. I have a highly analytical brain, I question lots of things, I do this for my profession as well and these skills serve me well as I'm able to find anomalies in data and pick out erroneous decision making through using critical thinking skills. In a lot of ways you are describing me to a T. I believe I have a highly analytical brain. I always liked math and science. History was so "relative." Then I was trained as a lawyer which makes me think about language in a very analytical and precise way, and I tend to be very precise in my speech. I have found this has actually helped me to understand the law of God. It fits together much like a human written code of law - just using symbolism and such rather than strict legal definitions. It also helps me to analyze the conclusions of other experts. While I was practicing, I considered my forte was cross-examination of experts. It seems experts can look at the same case and draw very different conclusions based on the same available "facts".... I think that goes to what we are talking about here. Quote Until a few years back, I always put the church and my beliefs in it up on a pedestal and never applied my critical thinking to it because I believed it unequivocally true in a very literal sense. When I started applying my analytical thinking skills to the church's truth claims everything quickly crumbled as far as literal truth is concerned. But because of my very pragmatic and optimistic personality traits I realized somewhere along the way that after I was done deconstructing the myths of my religious upbringing, that I might still find meaning in it through a more metaphorical approach. And that brings me to my current journey. I've found great inspiration largely through non-LDS Christians like Marcus Borg, Peter Enns, Mike McHargue, Richard Rohr, John Shelby Spong. What all of these people have in common and what I find meaningful to me is they've all had a faith deconstruction and then a rebirth through a metaphorical approach to religion. They don't all agree on every perspective, some are more mystical than others, but I'm trying to learn from their experiences and I'm finding value in this endeavor. I wish you well on your journey. I am glad you have chosen to come here and pick up what you can to help you. Hopefully, what I offer is of help to you as well. Quote And ultimately all I'm looking for from MFB is some acknowledgment that my approach is legitimate for me. He doesn't have to agree with my thinking or even fully understand it, I don't fully agree or understand his that's for sure. He can think in his heart of hearts that eventually I'll see the light and realize how my earlier thinking was flawed, and thats fine. Honestly I'm sure in 10 years from now my perspectives on many aspects of life will be different. If they are the same as today then I will have failed in a very important aspect of life and that is the call to learning and study and growth. My current beliefs are just how I feel today and I reserve the right to change tomorrow. Anyway, thanks for indulging me. I can't speak for MFB. From my conversations with you, I can only tell you that I don't rely on so-called experts to make my case. Obviously, I rely on historians and other experts all the time. I certainly cannot reconstruct history all on my own. I routinely rely on the work of thousands and thousands of man-hours of others to dig up findings, record history, and such. However, I feel completely free to analyze this information, criticize it or reject it based on many, many factors. Relying on experts to build what I want in my life, I feel would be a fool-hardy endeavor. That is all. By questioning experts, I believe I have routinely found new things. These are my "new truths." Sometimes history reborn. I can try to convince others of them, but ultimately if they choose not to follow, that is their agency to do so. I hope you stick around. Cheers friend 2
mfbukowski Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Honorentheos said: I would argue quite the opposite. My point relied directly on the comment that if one is examining the question from a religious perogative one will arrive at an answer that will be different from if one examines the question from a historical perogative. Your mistake is in confusing the use of historical myth in place of history to arrive at something that one can claim both fulfills one's spiritual needs AND is coherently investigated using the tools of the historian. So, no need to engage me. The confusion was all yours, friend. What "question" are you talking about? The comment was about finding salvation where one is seeking it. I don't have no idea what you are talking about. Of course a religious interpretation is different from historical interpretation. And I have absolutely no desire to mix the tools of the historian with a religious interpretation.
hagoth7 Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) 56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: ...But just because new insights are ultimately going to change our perspectives in the future, doesn't mean we reject the best hypothesis that are out there today. I think Rev is suggesting something *much* better than rejecting. Instead, we simply stay more on-our-toes nimble to *accept* things long before expert consensus ever does. Such consensus is too plodding and slow. Being nimble simply means we remain open to new input, and aren't afraid to become an early adopter of newly-emerging truth - even if almost everyone else can't quite see/accept it yet. 56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: ...And we should be careful about the human tendency to hold onto ideas that don't hold up to scrutiny just to support some outdated...dogmas that some earlier person was just speculating on anyway. Yep. Edited June 29, 2017 by hagoth7 2
mfbukowski Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Yup you did 😜 That's ok, I can handle their ridicule. It's like being picked on by your uncle who believes in space aliens...you just have to love him and smile when he started talking silly...but you still love him We are all so grateful for your wonderful wisdom and hope you can set us straight, ignerent folks that we is.
mfbukowski Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: If I may chime in, I find Mark a bit hard to follow, especially when he starts stirring the pot Wittgenstein-style about language. I think my measured IQ is about ten points too low to follow him, and I wish I could rise to that level. A few months ago, my wife and I spent a very nice afternoon with Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Gui, scoping out Seattle's waterfront, and it became clear that Bernard understood where Mark is coming from, so I will defer to my betters, like him and you, Rev, on figuring out what he's saying. But whether I can follow him or not, I tend to feel he knows what he is talking about. Most of the time, anyway. On the other hand, he might need to lighten up a bit. No point in dumping on hope_for_things like that. Vinegar and honey, Mark! We go back a long way and I finally ran out of honey. I was trying for tough love but he didn't see it that way so I guess I need to apologize. I love my buddy Bernard. Quite a fascinating person. 1
Recommended Posts