What is the role of the modern day Prophet, Seer and Revelator

[jkwilliams]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

..... and die for "freedom" 

I think you are wrong.  We live and die by metaphors.

All language is a metaphor- as I recall you used to think that.  But it WAS kind of a cute, facile, reply.

Was just making an observation about how many (most?) people operate, not espousing a theory of language and being.  Again, examples are many here of people who cannot abide the idea that religious events such as angels and gold plates need not be literal. It wasn’t meant as cute or facile but merely as acknowledging rongo’s position. If I misunderstood him, I’m happy for correction. 

[rongo]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It wasn’t meant as cute or facile but merely as acknowledging rongo’s position. If I misunderstood him, I’m happy for correction. 

Nope. You understood me!  

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And now notice that throughout the church now manuals are being de-emphasized toward individuals teaching as they are taught by the spirit!

Manuals are built for children, it is just a fact.  The manuals now even for youth are getting thinner and thinner, and for adults next year?  Barely there as subject guidelines mostly.

Why?

Because the church is changing and emphasizing individual testimony as it should have been all along

The 1950's and the McConkie/Smith era is disappearing

All the critics here bring up stuff from that period?   Why?   Because that is when they grew up!!   It is what Bruce R McC taught children.

That doesn't work anymore.

And the critics don't even understand why they stereotype  church literalism erroneously.  It was what they were taught in that era.

Prophets are fallible. 

But that does not mean there will not be a sacrament service in Missouri, literally.  The issue is how we KNOW that.  It is epistemology

Do we know that because a book tells us that or because our heart tells us that?

Trust your heart above the words of men.  In the final analysis it is all you have to tell you if the words of men are right in the first place!

I agree that the manuals are improving, that prophets are fallible, and that the McConkie era wasn’t our best. On the same page with you there!

I’m not yet ready to say that the manuals, even the new ones, are moving away from literalism. But feel free to share an example if you’d like.  I’m not aware of any. 

Have you ever tried stating, in a SS or PH class that Adam and Eve is an allegory? 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

No doubt about that, and thank goodness! (from my perspective). If the Church ever went officially "metaphorical/allegorical," it would really dampen my enthusiasm for the Church. It wouldn't affect my faith --- that would remain literal and vibrant --- but it would sadden me tremendously.

I know that it is a cross to bear for those who prefer Church/scriptural non-literalness that the Church officially is only literal (Garden of Eden, ten tribes, global flood, real people and places in BoM, BoA, BoMoses, etc.). I think it's overall better for the strength and vitality of the Church that the opposite isn't true, and the literalists have to keep their faith kindled in private. 

I think you meant “non-literalists” in your final sentence.  And I agree with your conclusion. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

They are not cherry-picked, they happen to be the first messages made by a prophets, seers and revelators in the October Ensign and first two sessions of General Conference (how difficult was that to find?). I think these messages are representative of a well-rounded experience and exemplify the tone for everything else done in the Church.

Now you've cherry-picked some examples from the manuals, and as I stated, some things, such as the resurrection of Christ, are taught as actual events and living realities, but not everything to the point of trying "to keep membership in the stage of believing literally," which would refrain from using the kinds of messages I pointed to.

And you did say that they "try to keep membership in the stage of believing literally" -- isn't that a less-developed stage than where you are, according to the Fowler or Perry categorizations, and wouldn't keeping them there require a retardant action against development?

I don’t think they are intentially trying to retard development.  I think they are doing what they feel is best for the church as a whole. 

Edited to add:  I’m not even willing to say which stage is “better”.  More developed may not be a good thing. 

Edited October 5, 2017 by rockpond

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Nah, that is your assertion that you are a real person- I doubt that "CV75" has a birth certificate- words!

And what good is a birth certificate?   You can buy those anywhere!!

To me you are squggles on a screen.  

Every one of is is a victim of "identity theft"- no one else knows our "true reality"

Identity theft really shows this in today's society but all it has done is illustrate what has always been.   If I see you face to face is that the "real you"?

And we speak that Joseph might be a fraud?   Who is not a fraud in some sense?   Is the image of you with a suit and tie really "you"?

All of this applies to me just as well of course- I am just making a point.

I think therefore I metaphorize.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t think they are intentially trying to retard development.  I think they are doing what they feel is best for the church as a whole. 

I can't appreciate (understand) this response unless you also answer my other questions from the same post, in in recognition of the context and intent for which I asked them.

Edited October 5, 2017 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I agree that the manuals are improving, that prophets are fallible, and that the McConkie era wasn’t our best. On the same page with you there!

I’m not yet ready to say that the manuals, even the new ones, are moving away from literalism. But feel free to share an example if you’d like.  I’m not aware of any. 

Have you ever tried stating, in a SS or PH class that Adam and Eve is an allegory? 

Why would I?

In their reality it is not possible.

In mine it is.

What good would it do to hurt their understanding?

Of course they would respond defensively.

Their exaltation is not in jeopardy where they are. It could have happened exactly as it is written or not- it us not for me to judge. It is only that "or not" phrase that distinguishes me from anyone else.

Anyone who thinks that it could not be seen from multiple perspectives will never understand what I'm talking about. There is no such thing as one correct perspective and acting as if there is. All that does is alienate both sides against the middle.

That appears to me to be what would happen if one would raise that in the wrong venue.

Edited October 5, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think therefore I metaphorize.

Think all you like. If necessary use words, but know you have now stepped into metaphors. 😀

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think therefore I metaphorize.

There you go.  This is pretty brilliant really the more I think about it.

Descartes messed up by saying "I think therefore I am" thereby switiching from speaking about thinking to the reality of things, namely himself.

If he had stayed in context, he might have come up with something about thinking than about existence.  What does thinking have to do with existence?   Did he really doubt he existed?

Obviously he knew before he started thinking about it that he existed.

And so til this day we think that when we think we must be thinking about something "real" which is NOT part of thought.  Sounds like a category mistake to me.

When we are thinking the conclusions we draw are..... wait for it...... thoughts.  He better should have said "I think therefore..... I think". or some such other thing that was absolutely true because it was a tautology.   Existence does not have much to do with thinking I would not think.  Rocks exist but they don't think a whole lot that I know of.

They might be thoughts about reality but they are not "true statements about reality"

So yes, you think therefore you metaphorize.    That's what thought is- making a kind of metaphor and juggling around your little metaphor "in your head"

You think about how to design a chair but the chair is still only a design - a thought or metaphor until you take out your saw, get some wood, and etc etc

It's got a kind of ring to it.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[sunstoned]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So?  What's your point?

The church is not a human organization?   God is a human you know. God changes and we have an open Canon.  Where's the beef?

I really don't have a horse in this race, so I'm not going debate, but there are a lot of Christians out there that believe god doesn't change (Hebrews 13.8).

 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I really don't have a horse in this race, so I'm not going debate, but there are a lot of Christians out there that believe god doesn't change (Hebrews 13.8).

 

Well quite frankly I am LDS and not a Sectarian Unrestored "Christian".

That scripture says that Christ is the same yesterday today and forever.

So I guess that means he was never born as a human, or died or was resurrected?  Those would all be changes wouldn't they?

Or possibly that he might have learned something during his life?  That requests might have been made of him which caused him to act in a certain way therefore making a "change" in his behavior?   Surely it doesn't mean that does it?   So what does it mean then?   Maybe that God never changes in loving us, or being compassionate etc?

In fact that means that he never changes IN changing constantly.    Heraclitus a Greek philosopher speaks of reality being a great river flowing down stream full of leaves and animals which is constantly changing yet ever the same.   That is where we get the expression "you can never step into the same river twice".- because the next time it is not exactly the same as it was even a second ago, yet someone might speak of the "eternal Nile" or use some other similar expression to describe it.

If God hears and answers a prayer, he changes from state1- God before the prayer to stage 2- God answering the prayer to 3- God after answering the prayer.  If he can change our lives he must be able to change himself just in order to do that

So I would suggest people who say silly things like indicating that scripture must mean God does not ever change in any way have not through it through much, doncha think?

 

[jkwilliams]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

Nope. You understood me!  

Thanks. I thought I had, but you never know. 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There you go.  This is pretty brilliant really the more I think about it.

Descartes messed up by saying "I think therefore I am" thereby switiching from speaking about thinking to the reality of things, namely himself.

If he had stayed in context, he might have come up with something about thinking than about existence.  What does thinking have to do with existence?   Did he really doubt he existed?

Obviously he knew before he started thinking about it that he existed.

And so til this day we think that when we think we must be thinking about something "real" which is NOT part of thought.  Sounds like a category mistake to me.

When we are thinking the conclusions we draw are..... wait for it...... thoughts.  He better should have said "I think therefore..... I think". or some such other thing that was absolutely true because it was a tautology.   Existence does not have much to do with thinking I would not think.  Rocks exist but they don't think a whole lot that I know of.

They might be thoughts about reality but they are not "true statements about reality"

So yes, you think therefore you metaphorize.    That's what thought is- making a kind of metaphor and juggling around your little metaphor "in your head"

You think about how to design a chair but the chair is still only a design - a thought or metaphor until you take out your saw, get some wood, and etc etc

It's got a kind of ring to it.

 

Because he realized he was doubting (or questioning) his existence, did not know he existed, at least for the sake of experiment (and an experiment is very much a metaphor), but he then concluded that means thinking, which he concluded that he could not do if he did not exist. I think he should have said, “I doubt, therefore I think – regardless of whether I exist or not -- but that’s good enough for me and I’ll accept that as a metaphor for existing.” If he were singing the Simon and Garfunkel song, he would have concluded that rocks think too and that’s perfectly OK because the song is folk-rock.

Here’s one for ya: ponderphorize

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Because he realized he was doubting (or questioning) his existence, did not know he existed, at least for the sake of experiment (and an experiment is very much a metaphor), but he then concluded that means thinking, which he concluded that he could not do if he did not exist. I think he should have said, “I doubt, therefore I think – regardless of whether I exist or not -- but that’s good enough for me and I’ll accept that as a metaphor for existing.” If he were singing the Simon and Garfunkel song, he would have concluded that rocks think too and that’s perfectly OK because the song is folk-rock.

 

Here’s one for ya: ponderphorize

 

Lol, oh gosh not that one again!

Interesting thoughts!

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Lol, oh gosh not that one again!

Interesting thoughts!

And thank you for your persistence in conveying your thoughts on this subject!

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well quite frankly I am LDS and not a Sectarian Unrestored "Christian".

That scripture says that Christ is the same yesterday today and forever.

So I guess that means he was never born as a human, or died or was resurrected?  Those would all be changes wouldn't they?

Or possibly that he might have learned something during his life?  That requests might have been made of him which caused him to act in a certain way therefore making a "change" in his behavior?   Surely it doesn't mean that does it?   So what does it mean then?   Maybe that God never changes in loving us, or being compassionate etc?

In fact that means that he never changes IN changing constantly.    Heraclitus a Greek philosopher speaks of reality being a great river flowing down stream full of leaves and animals which is constantly changing yet ever the same.   That is where we get the expression "you can never step into the same river twice".- because the next time it is not exactly the same as it was even a second ago, yet someone might speak of the "eternal Nile" or use some other similar expression to describe it.

If God hears and answers a prayer, he changes from state1- God before the prayer to stage 2- God answering the prayer to 3- God after answering the prayer.  If he can change our lives he must be able to change himself just in order to do that

So I would suggest people who say silly things like indicating that scripture must mean God does not ever change in any way have not through it through much, doncha think?

 

I have noted that the "Does not change" idea is used in conjunction with His promises or word. He does not change in His righteousness or He would cease to be God. He keeps His word. Only if man breaks his word, has God indicated He is no longer bound, and can "change." He can change His mind, and not follow through on His promise because man no longer deserves the promise. But yeah, the scriptures about Yeshua show all kinds of other change - not change in spirit - change in glory, titles, name, physical attributes, etc.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I have noted that the "Does not change" idea is used in conjunction with His promises or word. He does not change in His righteousness or He would cease to be God. He keeps His word. Only if man breaks his word, has God indicated He is no longer bound, and can "change." He can change His mind, and not follow through on His promise because man no longer deserves the promise. But yeah, the scriptures about Yeshua show all kinds of other change - not change in spirit - change in glory, titles, name, physical attributes, etc.

The whole problem was originally established by the confusion of....wait for it.... WORDS

God is perfect, right?  "Be ye therefore perfect"- what's wrong with that?   Do we agree with the ATTEMPT to be perfect?  Of course- we will not get there in this life, perhaps in some simple ways we can but yet it is a goal totally in harmony with the restored gospel

The problem is that in Greek, to be "perfect" the project must be "completed"!   And if it is "completed" it must be unchanging.   So for God to be perfect he must by definition be unchanging- in ancient Greek.  If something is in process, it cannot be complete and therefore it is not "perfect".

 

Quote

 

Strong's Concordance

teleios: having reached its end, i.e. complete, by ext. perfect

Original Word: τέλειος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: teleios
Phonetic Spelling: (tel'-i-os)
Short Definition: perfect, full-grown
Definition: perfect, (a) complete in all its parts, (b) full grown, of full age, (c) specially of the completeness of Christian character.

HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 5046 téleios (an adjective, derived from 5056 /télos, "consummated goal") – mature (consummated) from going through the necessary stages to reach the end-goal, i.e. developed into a consummating completion by fulfilling the necessary process (spiritual journey). See 5056 (telos).

[This root (tel-) means "reaching the end (aim)." It is well-illustrated with the old pirate's telescope, unfolding (extending out) one stage at a time to function at full-strength (capacity effectiveness).]

 

http://biblehub.com/str/greek/5046.htm

So the bottom line is that this is all pure Platonism which got into Christianity through Plotinus- plus it was in the air the ancients breathed.   Just as now most folks think that science holds the key to "TRUTH" and no one questions it, in those days no one questioned that this world in which we live is all illusion which mirrors the perfect unchanging realm of Platonic Forms.

Of course Plato was a "pagan" Greek but essentially he was laying the groundwork for the elimination of the pantheon of Greek gods and Christians adopted his view of God and ONE and unchanging because it made sense in those times.  Clearly in a realm of disease and death, poverty and filth even for the richest members of society, what they saw around them was not "perfect" by any means so somewhere there must be a realm of Ideals where we got the idea of perfection in the first place.   If this hole we live in is constantly changing, then the Perfect World must be unchanging

Here is an excellent presentation about this problem and how it evolved.   This is strictly Plato 101, but for those who never learned this or forgot it, it's a great summary.

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/plato_forms.htm

 

Quote

 

When we see a circle that has been drawn well what we are actually seeing is a close approximation of a perfect circle. In fact a perfect circle could not be seen at all. Infinite points which make up its circumference do not take up any space, they exist in logic rather than in a physical form. As soon as someone tries to draw it, even if he uses the most sophisticated computerised equipment, it becomes imperfect. But although the Ideal Form of a circle has never been seen, and never could be seen, people do know what a circle is, they can define it while at the same time accepting that it cannot be translated into the material world without losing its perfection.

For Plato, therefore, the Form of a Circle exists, but not in the physical world of space and time. It exists as a changeless object in the world of Forms or Ideas, which can be known only by reason. Forms have greater reality than objects in the physical world both because of their perfection and unchangingness, and because they are models. As Ideals, they give ordinary physical objects whatever reality they have, because of the ways in which the physical objects resemble any kind of existence because of resemblance to their corresponding physical objects. Circularity, squareness, and triangularity are excellent examples, then of what Plato meant by Forms. An object existing in the physical world may be called a circle or a square or a triangle only to the extent that it resembles (‘participates in’ is Plato’s phrase) the Form ‘circularity’ or ‘squareness’ or ‘triangularity’.

 

We do not see the world that way any more- what is around us- the appearance of things rather than there essence is "reality"!

For us a circle is a word describing a shape and we use circles practically without worry about "essences" which we see as vague and undefinable.  Scientists do not worry about "essences"- they may worry about what kind of materials one needs to make a "circle" of a certain type of metal to certain tolerances for, say a rocket or whatever.

We do not see the world this way anymore.

So today we live in a world of appearances- there is no distinction between reality and appearances.  A chair is a chair.  But words are also words and are not something that "corresponds" to Essence of the Chair- they are just symbolic representations of that thing out there we sit on, with all its ambiguity etc.

So too we need to change our conception of God from some Unchanging Essence of Perfection to that of being our Father who is there for us much as our earthly fathers are- but earthly dads are never "perfect"

So now we have an Ideal Father upon which we can model our behavior.   The Platonic Ideal has be transferred from the realm of being otherworldly to being our concept of the Ideal Father.   Of course we believe he is real.  Why?

Because He is now directly in our realm of direct experience.  We experience God as being an actual person in our lives to whom we can confide our problems and who helps us through inspiration.

Those who do not actually experience that do not understand.  I have theories of why that is- primarily because they have been blinded by scientism, which BY DESIGN eliminates what cannot be reproduced empirically.

But what we know and feel inside is usually much more "real" to us than some Scientific Ideal which parallels Platonism quite closely actually!  Science sees everything as a general idea, and not in particulars.   Science makes everything generic by insisting that experiences of one must be consistent with experiences of all.  (Experiments must be replicable).   If one scientist discovers something "out of line" with the hive wisdom, it is questioned

Anyway- too long- keep it for later

Peace, out

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

The whole problem was originally established by the confusion of....wait for it.... WORDS

God is perfect, right?  "Be ye therefore perfect"- what's wrong with that?   Do we agree with the ATTEMPT to be perfect?  Of course- we will not get there in this life, perhaps in some simple ways we can but yet it is a goal totally in harmony with the restored gospel

The problem is that in Greek, to be "perfect" the project must be "completed"!   And if it is "completed" it must be unchanging.   So for God to be perfect he must by definition be unchanging- in ancient Greek.  If something is in process, it cannot be complete and therefore it is not "perfect".

 

http://biblehub.com/str/greek/5046.htm

So the bottom line is that this is all pure Platonism which got into Christianity through Plotinus- plus it was in the air the ancients breathed.   Just as now most folks think that science holds the key to "TRUTH" and no one questions it, in those days no one questioned that this world in which we live is all illusion which mirrors the perfect unchanging realm of Platonic Forms.

Of course Plato was a "pagan" Greek but essentially he was laying the groundwork for the elimination of the pantheon of Greek gods and Christians adopted his view of God and ONE and unchanging because it made sense in those times.  Clearly in a realm of disease and death, poverty and filth even for the richest members of society, what they saw around them was not "perfect" by any means so somewhere there must be a realm of Ideals where we got the idea of perfection in the first place.   If this hole we live in is constantly changing, then the Perfect World must be unchanging

Here is an excellent presentation about this problem and how it evolved.   This is strictly Plato 101, but for those who never learned this or forgot it, it's a great summary.

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/plato_forms.htm

I find Chapter 2 of "Of Grammatology" to be particularly informative when pondering these questions.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/derrida.htm

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I find Chapter 2 of "Of Grammatology" to be particularly informative when pondering these questions.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/derrida.htm

As well as the idea that science seeks universals- a most interesting idea

[rockpond]

On 10/5/2017 at 5:17 PM, mfbukowski said:

Why would I?

In their reality it is not possible.

In mine it is.

What good would it do to hurt their understanding?

Of course they would respond defensively.

Their exaltation is not in jeopardy where they are. It could have happened exactly as it is written or not- it us not for me to judge. It is only that "or not" phrase that distinguishes me from anyone else.

Anyone who thinks that it could not be seen from multiple perspectives will never understand what I'm talking about. There is no such thing as one correct perspective and acting as if there is. All that does is alienate both sides against the middle.

That appears to me to be what would happen if one would raise that in the wrong venue.

I agree.  Wrong venue.  That’s been my point.