bluebell Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: There are lots of scriptures all over the world, as defined by the various religions around the world. Are you saying that Mormon scriptures and Mormon visionary experiences apply to everyone universally, while non-Mormon scriptures and non-Mormon visionary experiences only apply to the followers of those religions. That's kind of the definition of 'one true church', isn't it? Maybe i'm misunderstanding what you are saying though.
hope_for_things Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: That's kind of the definition of 'one true church', isn't it? Maybe i'm misunderstanding what you are saying though. Yes, the "one true church" teaching in it most literal and fundamentalist interpretation is a form of moral absolutism. I do know some Mormons who also believe this, I don't think its scriptural or moral or an even remotely defensible position.
bluebell Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, the "one true church" teaching in it most literal and fundamentalist interpretation is a form of moral absolutism. I do know some Mormons who also believe this, I don't think its scriptural or moral or an even remotely defensible position. You don't think that it's morally defensible to believe that God has given His authority to one church? Besides that, one of the teachings of the 'one true church' is that truth can be found anywhere, including outside of itself. How is that morally indefensible? 1
hope_for_things Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: You don't think that it's morally defensible to believe that God has given His authority to one church? Besides that, one of the teachings of the 'one true church' is that truth can be found anywhere, including outside of itself. How is that morally indefensible? No, I see no defensibility in the idea that God has chosen any group of people for privileged status for authority, this is also contradicted in the scripture "God is no respecter of persons". Truth can be found anywhere, contradicts the idea of exclusive authority as well. How can truth be found anywhere, but authority can only be found in one institution. Edited October 2, 2017 by hope_for_things
bluebell Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: No, I see no defensibility in the idea that God has chosen any group of people for privileged status for authority, this is also contradicted in the scripture "God is no respecter of persons". Truth can be found anywhere, contradicts the idea of exclusive authority as well. How can truth be found anywhere, but authority can only be found in one institution. I have no idea why you think that those things are mutually exclusive. If all people are given the opportunity to become part of God's chosen people, then the existence of such a group does not in any way contradict the truth that God does not respect one person more than another. Truth being everywhere also doesn't contradict the idea of exclusive authority. I can't follow your line of reasoning on this. It doesn't make any sense from my perspective. 2
JLHPROF Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: No, I see no defensibility in the idea that God has chosen any group of people for privileged status for authority, this is also contradicted in the scripture "God is no respecter of persons". Truth can be found anywhere, contradicts the idea of exclusive authority as well. How can truth be found anywhere, but authority can only be found in one institution. I disagree with this too. Again, there are too many scriptures and examples. 32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, the "one true church" teaching in it most literal and fundamentalist interpretation is a form of moral absolutism. I do know some Mormons who also believe this, I don't think its scriptural or moral or an even remotely defensible position. Except that God said it was. (Although it is always the chosen that report God labeled them as such). But you'd have to deny an awful lot of scripture to remove the idea that God has a chosen people. 2
pogi Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: No, I see no defensibility in the idea that God has chosen any group of people for privileged status for authority, this is also contradicted in the scripture "God is no respecter of persons". "God is no respecter of persons" is to be understood in the context of Cornelius, that the gospel is not to be reserved for the Jews only, but that God will provide every person with the opportunity to receive the blessings available through the plan of salvation. The authority of the priesthood is, and has always been, reserved for worthy males called to offices in the priesthood. The scriptures clearly substantiate this. Think of the Levites - did their "privileged status for authority" (using your language) make God a respecter of persons? 31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Truth can be found anywhere, contradicts the idea of exclusive authority as well. How can truth be found anywhere, but authority can only be found in one institution. You are conflating truth and authority. Two different things (if you can call either a thing). 1
hope_for_things Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: I have no idea why you think that those things are mutually exclusive. If all people are given the opportunity to become part of God's chosen people, then the existence of such a group does not in any way contradict the truth that God does not respect one person more than another. Truth being everywhere also doesn't contradict the idea of exclusive authority. I can't follow your line of reasoning on this. It doesn't make any sense from my perspective. Similarly, I don't understand your reasoning on this issue. You've taken ideas that are "exclusive" and are trying to twist them to mean something other than what they mean. If you believe in exclusive authority, you can't also believe that truth is found anywhere, because exclusive means it can't be found anywhere, it is either exclusive or its not. Its either universal and absolute, or it isn't. I believe its not universal, can't be universal and never was universal. I think what you want to believe is that Mormonism contains both exclusive authority on one hand but universal acceptance of truth on the other hand, except when those truths come in conflict with Mormon dogma. Unfortunately you fail to see the contradiction in these definitions, you can't say someone else's belief is both true and false at the same time. If they have access to visionary experiences that are true, then those truths can't also be counterfeit when their truth comes in conflict with your truth.
hope_for_things Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I disagree with this too. Again, there are too many scriptures and examples. Except that God said it was. (Although it is always the chosen that report God labeled them as such). But you'd have to deny an awful lot of scripture to remove the idea that God has a chosen people. God didn't say it was, the authors of those scriptures wrote their claims for authority in the God first person voice, but it wasn't God speaking, it was their cultural tribal world view speaking.
hope_for_things Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, pogi said: "God is no respecter of persons" is to be understood in the context of Cornelius, that the gospel is not to be reserved for the Jews only, but that God will provide every person with the opportunity to receive the blessings available through the plan of salvation. The authority of the priesthood is, and has always been, reserved for worthy males called to offices in the priesthood. The scriptures clearly substantiate this. Think of the Levites - did their "privileged status for authority" (using your language) make God a respecter of persons? You're talking about Hebrew religious traditions. Again, I'm not an absolutist, and i don't believe that these traditions apply to everyone. 8 minutes ago, pogi said: You are conflating truth and authority. Two different things (if you can call either a thing). I'm conflating them because their is no clear distinction as far as I can tell. Authority to act in the name of God. When someone hears the voice of God in vision, which is the context of what we're discussing, and that voice of God tells them to do something or tells that that a certain idea is inspired from God, then how is that not authority from God?
bluebell Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Similarly, I don't understand your reasoning on this issue. You've taken ideas that are "exclusive" and are trying to twist them to mean something other than what they mean. If you believe in exclusive authority, you can't also believe that truth is found anywhere, because exclusive means it can't be found anywhere, it is either exclusive or its not. Its either universal and absolute, or it isn't. I believe its not universal, can't be universal and never was universal. Truth and authority are two different things. You seem to not understand that. I never said that truth was exclusive; i said that authority was. So that whole bolded argument is irrelevant. You seem to be using the two terms as if they are exchangeable but they have very different meanings. That's why i said i don't understand your reasoning here. You are conflating truth and authority and that doesn't make any sense.
JLHPROF Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: God didn't say it was, the authors of those scriptures wrote their claims for authority in the God first person voice, but it wasn't God speaking, it was their cultural tribal world view speaking. Well given that is the only record for God's opinion on anything at all, that is all we have to go on. Any other opinions on God that differ with these can only be works of our own cultural tribal world view. In other words, if they made God in their own image, and we reject that image, then we know nothing about God. We just make him in our own image too. It sounds like all you want to do is pick and choose the characteristics of God in scripture that you personally like. That is hardly an accurate method for determining the nature of God. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Well given that is the only record for God's opinion on anything at all, that is all we have to go on. Any other opinions on God that differ with these can only be works of our own cultural tribal world view. In other words, if they made God in their own image, and we reject that image, then we know nothing about God. We just make him in our own image too. It sounds like all you want to do is pick and choose the characteristics of God in scripture that you personally like. That is hardly an accurate method for determining the nature of God. You've just described the enterprise of religion. The way people experience the divine from their unique vantage point.
hope_for_things Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 14 minutes ago, bluebell said: Truth and authority are two different things. You seem to not understand that. I never said that truth was exclusive; i said that authority was. So that whole bolded argument is irrelevant. You seem to be using the two terms as if they are exchangeable but they have very different meanings. That's why i said i don't understand your reasoning here. You are conflating truth and authority and that doesn't make any sense. They are essentially two sides of the same coin. No material difference between authority and truth.
pogi Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You're talking about Hebrew religious traditions. Again, I'm not an absolutist, and i don't believe that these traditions apply to everyone. I am confused, your claim was that exclusive authority is not scriptural. It clearly is. You then curiously used the Bible to prove your point (interesting in that you now discredit the Bible as mere Hebrew religious traditions which do not apply). Whether or not you accept scripture and think it is applicable or not is another story. Yes, I am talking about Hebrew religious traditions. The same Hebrews that appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him priesthood keys and authority, including Moses, Elias, Elijah, etc. You don't have to believe that these traditions apply to everyone. They obviously don't. The authority of God only applied to the Hebrews. That is the point - it IS exclusive and NOT universal. The fact that you are NOT an absolutist should help you understand that authority is NOT universal. Quote I'm conflating them because their is no clear distinction as far as I can tell. Authority to act in the name of God. When someone hears the voice of God in vision, which is the context of what we're discussing, and that voice of God tells them to do something or tells that that a certain idea is inspired from God, then how is that not authority from God? There is a clear difference. It sounds like you are also conflating the right to personal revelation with priesthood authority. We all have "authority" (if that is what you want to call it) for personal revelation. That is different from priesthood authority which can reveal God's word to and for others. The difference between truth and authority might be better explained with this analogy - certain government officials have access to classified information (truth), but that truth does not give them authority to reveal that information to others. There is a clear distinction between truth (God's word), and authority (right to act in God's name). There is also a clear distinction between personal revelation (God's word for you), and prophetic revelation (God's word for the church and world). 1
bluebell Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: They are essentially two sides of the same coin. No material difference between authority and truth. No, they aren't. I have no idea what that even means. Authority is the right to act in someone's name. Truth is when something is real, factual, accurate, or honest. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You've just described the enterprise of religion. The way people experience the divine from their unique vantage point. I far too much of a literalist to agree with that. God exists in absolute terms, not relative terms. We may not be able to entirely comprehend him in this life, but he has revealed himself to some along with his will, direction, and commands. Faith is accepting what God has revealed regardless of our own vantage point. All else is skepticism. And there is no point in believing in a God based entirely on what we want him to be instead of what he actually is. Better off as an atheist than worshipping a self-made deity. Edited October 2, 2017 by JLHPROF 1
hope_for_things Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 25 minutes ago, pogi said: I am confused, your claim was that exclusive authority is not scriptural. It clearly is. You then curiously used the Bible to prove your point (interesting in that you now discredit the Bible as mere Hebrew religious traditions which do not apply). Whether or not you accept scripture and think it is applicable or not is another story. Yes, I am talking about Hebrew religious traditions. The same Hebrews that appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him priesthood keys and authority, including Moses, Elias, Elijah, etc. You don't have to believe that these traditions apply to everyone. They obviously don't. The authority of God only applied to the Hebrews. That is the point - it IS exclusive and NOT universal. The fact that you are NOT an absolutist should help you understand that authority is NOT universal. The scriptures are a hodge podge of different authors with different opinions, we all pick and choose what perspectives we like, I'm very open about that. As for authority, I of course agree that it's not universal, both outside of Christian/Judeo religious traditions, but also inside since their are so many factions and different interpretations within those traditions. Authority for an institution is one thing, who has the formal right to make declarations for the institution, but authority for individuals is another and it's subjective and varies from person to person.
Glenn101 Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 9 hours ago, Gray said: There is no reason why anyone can't completely accept all the conclusions of critical Jesus scholarship, and also still accept traditional theological notions about who Jesus was. The only adjustment required, perhaps, is letting go of the idea of total consciousness of the mission by Jesus himself. Why would a total believer wish to completely accept the conclusions of critical Jesus scholarship when it is tentative at best? There is so little secular evidence for or against Jesus but I do not need that in any event. Jesus is noted at an early age being cognizant of His calling and who He (Jesus) was but the scriptures tell us that he did not receive a fullness at first but from grace to grace until He received a fullness. And we have his appearance to Joseph Smith in 1820 and again in the Temple is 1836. That is better than all the scholarship of man. Glenn
hope_for_things Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: No, they aren't. I have no idea what that even means. Authority is the right to act in someone's name. Truth is when something is real, factual, accurate, or honest. Truth is closely tied to authority, companies, religions, governments don't acquire and maintain authority if the stakeholders of those institutions don't value their authority as truth for them. If your bishop calls you to do something and you don't believe in truth that his calling was inspired, you won't accept it. Authority is limited and dependent upon truth.
bluebell Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Truth is closely tied to authority, companies, religions, governments don't acquire and maintain authority if the stakeholders of those institutions don't value their authority as truth for them. If your bishop calls you to do something and you don't believe in truth that his calling was inspired, you won't accept it. Authority is limited and dependent upon truth. None of that means that truth and authority have the same definition. I think your point would make more sense if you said that belief is closely tied to authority. That would at least make sense (though have no bearing on whether or not truth and authority have different definitions, which they do). Truth is truth, whether anyone believes in it or not. How people react to truth is completely irrelevant. People believe/trust/give authority to falsehoods all the time. Governments have risen on lies. Churches have flourished based on lies. Relationships are sometimes built on lies. Truth is not tied to authority, as history proves. I hope I’m not coming across as condescending because I’m not trying to be. I just sincerely don’t see the connection you are trying to make. Edited October 3, 2017 by bluebell
thesometimesaint Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: No, I see no defensibility in the idea that God has chosen any group of people for privileged status for authority, this is also contradicted in the scripture "God is no respecter of persons". Truth can be found anywhere, contradicts the idea of exclusive authority as well. How can truth be found anywhere, but authority can only be found in one institution. God wants all to come to his Church, and he allows all their agency. If you don't want it there is nothing his going to do to you to force you to believe it. Truth is not found everywhere, but some truths are found in all religions. To use a earthly example most people know at least little First Aid medicine, this is good thing, but not all people have the necessary knowledge, skills, and authority to be a physician, and hang out a "shingle" from the state to practice it. But all are free to try to get those. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has that authority from God.
Gray Posted October 3, 2017 Author Posted October 3, 2017 11 hours ago, Glenn101 said: Why would a total believer wish to completely accept the conclusions of critical Jesus scholarship when it is tentative at best? I don't know, is tentative better than completely conjectural? Theology is always conjectural (ie completely faith based). 11 hours ago, Glenn101 said: There is so little secular evidence for or against Jesus but I do not need that in any event. Jesus is noted at an early age being cognizant of His calling and who He (Jesus) was but the scriptures tell us that he did not receive a fullness at first but from grace to grace until He received a fullness. And we have his appearance to Joseph Smith in 1820 and again in the Temple is 1836. That is better than all the scholarship of man. Glenn That's great theology, but that has no effect on history. Believe what makes you the best person you can be.
hope_for_things Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: God wants all to come to his Church, and he allows all their agency. If you don't want it there is nothing his going to do to you to force you to believe it. Truth is not found everywhere, but some truths are found in all religions. To use a earthly example most people know at least little First Aid medicine, this is good thing, but not all people have the necessary knowledge, skills, and authority to be a physician, and hang out a "shingle" from the state to practice it. But all are free to try to get those. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has that authority from God. The LDS church has authority, whether its from God or not is up to each person to decide individually, its not an objective reality claim, but a subjective claim. This rock on my desk that says "Dad Rocks" has authority from God if I believe it does. And this comes back to what I was debating with Bluebell and I'll respond to her in a moment. If I believe something has authority, then it has authority for me, and it does because I believe it is true for me personally. These are subjective truths I'm talking about, not objective factual truths, but subjective relationship truths.
Recommended Posts