hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Truth claims aren't accepted because of their "utility," they are accepted because we believe them to be true. Hence the expression "truth claims." If we accepted or rejected them based upon their utility, they'd be "utility claims." I don't know who you propose to include in that "we." But "we" who can plausibly claim to be believing Latter-day Saints (without indulging in any lexical duplicity) don't set LDS truth claims aside. We accept them as our starting point. I watched the press conference last week. I didn't see what you saw. We'll keep it because we believe it to be true. We believe it to be true because God revealed it. Which is a rather startling approach to a truth claim. Again, we accept them because they are true, not because they confer benefits. Believing Latter-day Saints accept the Church's truth claims. (That's virtually tautological.) Rejecting the Church's truth claims is what is known as "apostasy." Unfortunately not much that can be debated here, it’s basically circular reasoning. It seems to me if this is the best that modern Mormonism can bring that it will have an increasingly difficult time as the culture continues to become more secular. Personally I find that sad because I find elements of Mormonism to be very inspirational. 1
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Not to dismiss the rest of your post, but this really gets to the heart of the matter. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the one true and living Savior? I am assuming that you do...but why? Trying to convince someone else through reason and logic that Jesus Christ is the one true and living Savior makes about as much sense as trying to convince someone by the same means that the LDS church is the one true and living church with which the Lord is well pleased. You tell me, what is the "true evaluation" of the merits of the true and living Savior claim? There is your answer. I don't expect others to believe the same as me. I expect and encourage others to follow their conscience (aka "the true evaluation"). If they do so to the best of their understanding, I believe that we will eventually converge via the same gate of baptism (in this life or the next). But that can only happen through the utility of authorized priesthood ordinances; which leads to the ultimate utility: Exaltation You will of course argue that this can't be demonstrates as a utility using reason and logic. I will simply counter that not all utilities need to be demonstrated through reason and logic, such is the case with the utility of the one true and living Savior claim. Sometimes we need to trust our conscience and spiritual intuition. This leads to spiritual integrity (another important utility). I don’t really believe in literal salvation or exaltation constructions, so your example isn’t really applicable to me, but I can see what you’re trying to do for those that hold those beliefs. I do believe in the power of metaphor and myth, but these are true in a very different sense of that word than how I’m critiquing the standard use of that term in Mormon parlance.
pogi Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I don’t really believe in literal salvation or exaltation constructions, so your example isn’t really applicable to me We’ll see
Bobbieaware Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I don’t really believe in literal salvation or exaltation constructions, so your example isn’t really applicable to me, but I can see what you’re trying to do for those that hold those beliefs. I do believe in the power of metaphor and myth, but these are true in a very different sense of that word than how I’m critiquing the standard use of that term in Mormon parlance. If you don’t believe in literal salvation, does that Imply you believe in some sort of non-literal salvation? If there is such a thing as a belief in a non-literal salvation, it would be most interesting to have two or three elements of that kind of salvation explained. But if you’re unbelief in a literal salvation means you don’t believe in any kind of salvation at all, why such an intense daily interest in Mormonism, the paramount example of a religion of literal salvation?
CV75 Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Science covers so much more than those limited categories. I don’t describe science in those terms of true and living though. I’d like you to answer my question first before I explore pros and cons of science. Of course it does. What do you describe in terms of true and living? Edited January 23, 2018 by CV75
Kevin Christensen Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 16 hours ago, hope_for_things said: There are parts of this kind of an approach that work for me, but parts that I have a hard time with still. Like the a priori assumption that all decisions by church authorities for the institution as a whole have the impetus of being the will of God. I don't believe the Nov 2015 policy is the will of God. It is in direct conflict with many of the principles that I find to be central to the gospel message. If we consider all the mistakes throughout Mormon history, that aren't bound in a book of scripture, I'm talking about policy and practice mistakes like the priesthood ban that were implemented and administered by church prophets. Then why should we call this church the only true and living church? What is the point of that kind of claim? If true and living means making mistakes and muddling through life, then that may be an appropriate label, but that isn't what the straight forward meaning of those words is. Also, how would that differentiate this church from other religions around the world that are also muddling through and making mistakes along the way. Honestly, I don't see any redeeming reason to try and privilege this church above other churches around the world. I actually see a lot of harm in trying to privilege this church above others (pride, tone deaf to others needs, inability to see institutional weaknesses.) I would like to see a strong argument from a cost/benefit utility perspective for the true church claim. If this its true, lets make it manifest by proving contraries as Joseph suggested. So me the money!!! I cannot help but notice that this argument depends completely on the misreading of D&C 1 that I have been trying to correct literally for decades. As Thomas Kuhn says, "Anomaly emerges against a background of expectation." Which is why Jesus calls for us to remove the beams from our own eyes first, in order to see clearly. D&C 1 formally and explicitly states that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest," which strikes me as completely different from claiming "everything they do and say is the will of God because they are my sock puppets and are incapable of anything else." If you had actually considered what makes the LDS faith well pleasing with respect to what "true and living" signifies, you'd be looking at claims to priesthood, ordinances, covenants, ongoing revelation, and the temple, rather than political and social hot buttons. What other church actually builds temples? Who actually takes the covenants seriously? Who else has anything like the Book of Mormon and prophets? Who has all of it, and not just part? They way that you measure, the things that you call out as the most significant criteria are very different than the things that the true and living designation tries to direct our attention towards. And that inevitably affects judgement and measurement, what we notice, and what we value. What I did decades back was to look at the Biblical uses of "true" and "living". True vine, true treasure, living bread, living waters, tree of life, living way through the veil, living stones, truth and life, the true God, the living God in a "voice of warning" passage in Jeremiah... I found that all of the imagery points consistently to a voice of warning, covenants, priesthood, ordinances, revelation, temple which happen to match the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse. And none of your complaints address this, but rather veer off again into "exclusive truth, virtue, and revelation" misreading. It's not about exclusive truth, virtue, or revelation, and cannot be about exclusive truth, virtue, and revelation because D&C 1 formally states that the LDS DO NOT possess exclusive truth, virtue. or revelation. And so does Joseph Smith: Quote But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of man, causes "His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, "according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil," or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will by judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right. And incidentally, regarding the Nov 2015 policy, one of my friends whose wife had left him for a series of women for over a decade, and who had an up close and personal look at the costs and circumstances, who was able to point out to his concerned daughter that they policy would not have in fact, prevented their baptism as children, saw the outrage over the policy as a manufactured crisis, and actually returned to activity as a consequence. Oh, and the wife that left him and lived as a lesbian for over a decade is now in a happy temple marriage. My brother had a similar first marriage, though, in his case, she is still in that life style (on her third partner last I heard), and his two sons are both active LDS. The policy would not have affected them either. But as with my friend, the wife's choices continue to have lasting effects on those left behind. But no one tells these stories, do they. In politics, controlling the narrative means deciding which stories we tell as generally paradigmatic, and which stories we ignore because they do not support the desired narrative. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: If you don’t believe in literal salvation, does that Imply you believe in some sort of non-literal salvation? If there is such a thing as a belief in a non-literal salvation, it would be most interesting to have two or three elements of that kind of salvation explained. But if you’re unbelief in a literal salvation means you don’t believe in any kind of salvation at all, why such an intense daily interest in Mormonism, the paramount example of a religion of literal salvation? I really don't want to get into my personal beliefs in to great of detail on this thread.
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 3 hours ago, CV75 said: Of course it does. What do you describe in terms of true and living? Answer my question first please, and then we can continue.
Calm Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I really don't want to get into my personal beliefs in to great of detail on this thread. But I have no clue what a nonliteral salvation would look like and how can I possibly learn from you if I don't understand what those words mean to you even if you skip why and what value/meaning . I hope you will start a new thread . 1
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: I cannot help but notice that this argument depends completely on the misreading of D&C 1 that I have been trying to correct literally for decades. As Thomas Kuhn says, "Anomaly emerges against a background of expectation." Which is why Jesus calls for us to remove the beams from our own eyes first, in order to see clearly. D&C 1 formally and explicitly states that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest," which strikes me as completely different from claiming "everything they do and say is the will of God because they are my sock puppets and are incapable of anything else." Kevin, I really like the your work on D&C 1 and how I wish more people would read it. However, this misreading of D&C 1 that you're critiquing is embedded within correlated teachings and the culture of contemporary Mormonism. I honestly don't think it will be eradicated until the leadership of the church start teaching some of the same things you've brought up in your essay. 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: If you had actually considered what makes the LDS faith well pleasing with respect to what "true and living" signifies, you'd be looking at claims to priesthood, ordinances, covenants, ongoing revelation, and the temple, rather than political and social hot buttons. What other church actually builds temples? Who actually takes the covenants seriously? Who else has anything like the Book of Mormon and prophets? Who has all of it, and not just part? They way that you measure, the things that you call out as the most significant criteria are very different than the things that the true and living designation tries to direct our attention towards. And that inevitably affects judgement and measurement, what we notice, and what we value. Of course I consider these things, why would you think I haven't. I've lived as a dedicated member of the church my entire life. It seems that all the things you mentioned can be distilled down into one primary result, and that is that the true church belief creates a very loyal and devoted following of people. 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: What I did decades back was to look at the Biblical uses of "true" and "living". True vine, true treasure, living bread, living waters, tree of life, living way through the veil, living stones, truth and life, the true God, the living God in a "voice of warning" passage in Jeremiah... I found that all of the imagery points consistently to a voice of warning, covenants, priesthood, ordinances, revelation, temple which happen to match the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse. And none of your complaints address this, but rather veer off again into "exclusive truth, virtue, and revelation" misreading. It's not about exclusive truth, virtue, or revelation, and cannot be about exclusive truth, virtue, and revelation because D&C 1 formally states that the LDS DO NOT possess exclusive truth, virtue. or revelation. And so does Joseph Smith: I like some of what you're doing for sure, looking at parallels in the bible and other metaphors for true and living. What I would like to see with respect to my critique is an evaluation of true and living in a modern context that applies directly to the current times and culture. Not saying that some of these older traditions don't also apply, but a focus on the present needs and how many of them are unique to our day. As for the exclusive truth claim, that is my focus here, because that is how truth is described by the leaders and through our correlated curriculum. 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: And incidentally, regarding the Nov 2015 policy, one of my friends whose wife had left him for a series of women for over a decade, and who had an up close and personal look at the costs and circumstances, who was able to point out to his concerned daughter that they policy would not have in fact, prevented their baptism as children, saw the outrage over the policy as a manufactured crisis, and actually returned to activity as a consequence. Oh, and the wife that left him and lived as a lesbian for over a decade is now in a happy temple marriage. My brother had a similar first marriage, though, in his case, she is still in that life style (on her third partner last I heard), and his two sons are both active LDS. The policy would not have affected them either. But as with my friend, the wife's choices continue to have lasting effects on those left behind. But no one tells these stories, do they. In politics, controlling the narrative means deciding which stories we tell as generally paradigmatic, and which stories we ignore because they do not support the desired narrative. While I'm sure there are unique exceptions to how people responded to the Nov 2015 policy. However, the vast majority of people I've interacted with, including extended family members and friends and also the majority of people in the LGBT community that I've interacted with were deeply hurt by this policy. Pointing out the exceptions does not make for an accurate representation of the overwhelming negative impacts.
CV75 Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Answer my question first please, and then we can continue. It's only worth my time if I understand your question and the context in which you use the term. So, what do you think "true and living" means, and how do you apply it to something you deal with regularly?
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, Calm said: But I have no clue what a nonliteral salvation would look like and how can I possibly learn from you if I don't understand what those words mean to you even if you skip why and what value/meaning . I hope you will start a new thread . Honestly Calm, I'm feeling a little beat down after yesterday and today on the message board. Its hard when people in the forums attribute evil motives to my comments and take pot shots at me personally. Why should I be vulnerable about my intimate personal faith journey when some are looking for any opportunity to pounce on me already. Unfortunately, this isn't a safe enough environment with the current tone that has been set.
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 10 minutes ago, CV75 said: It's only worth my time if I understand your question and the context in which you use the term. So, what do you think "true and living" means, and how do you apply it to something you deal with regularly? Its your turn first my friend.
Bobbieaware Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I really don't want to get into my personal beliefs in to great of detail on this thread. I’m disappointed. It would have been very interesting to learn what a non-literal form of salvation might mean.
mfbukowski Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 20 hours ago, pogi said: Yes, writing is one of the natural aptitudes of an INFP personality type (which Kevin is). Some are obviously more gifted than others, as I too am an INFP Dang, you made me look it up. http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html I tend to be that way obviously too since all I am concerned about is helping people create their own realities. But I tend to carry a sword and tell them to do it or else, which is why I don't write as well as I wished I could. I am definitely not nice enough. Now get going on making your world - if I have to jump through the screen to grab you it won't be pretty. 1
Calm Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Honestly Calm, I'm feeling a little beat down after yesterday and today on the message board. Its hard when people in the forums attribute evil motives to my comments and take pot shots at me personally. Why should I be vulnerable about my intimate personal faith journey when some are looking for any opportunity to pounce on me already. Unfortunately, this isn't a safe enough environment with the current tone that has been set. Don't worry about it. Maybe another time.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Kevin, I really like the your work on D&C 1 and how I wish more people would read it. However, this misreading of D&C 1 that you're critiquing is embedded within correlated teachings and the culture of contemporary Mormonism. I honestly don't think it will be eradicated until the leadership of the church start teaching some of the same things you've brought up in your essay. Of course I consider these things, why would you think I haven't. I've lived as a dedicated member of the church my entire life. It seems that all the things you mentioned can be distilled down into one primary result, and that is that the true church belief creates a very loyal and devoted following of people. SNIP for later As for the exclusive truth claim, that is my focus here, because that is how truth is described by the leaders and through our correlated curriculum. While I'm sure there are unique exceptions to how people responded to the Nov 2015 policy. However, the vast majority of people I've interacted with, including extended family members and friends and also the majority of people in the LGBT community that I've interacted with were deeply hurt by this policy. Pointing out the exceptions does not make for an accurate representation of the overwhelming negative impacts. I'm glad you like my reading of D&C 1. It is meant to help. Regarding the possibility of institutionally eradicating the misreading of D&C 1, I also addressed that in my essay and provided this quote in my Nov 27th post on this thread. Quote Of course, it’s easy to object that many LDS think and behave as though D&C 1 says exactly what it does not say. There happens to be a very good reason for the common misreading that goes beyond repetition and commonplace thinking. Brigham Young commented that “there is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them—that is to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are.”52 One of the ways that has helped me better understand “men and women as they are” has been the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth. The Perry Scheme is based on a study of the way students develop during their college years in moving from provincial communities to a diverse university environment.53 Here are Positions 1 and 2 of 9: Position 1 – Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.) The person perceives meaning divided into two realms—Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will [Page 136]teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Position 2 – Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake) Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are true authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.54 The point here is that the attitude toward a group’s authorities that Riskas sees as a distinctive Mormon claim applies to a position of human development that everyone faces regardless of their cultural background. Because Mormons are human, these positions will always be found among Mormons. But it is not a binding Mormon doctrine, simply an expected expression of human attitude toward their chosen society at a particular level of personal growth. As I have shown, D&C 1 expressly contradicts the assumptions of these initial positions and thereby encourages further growth. Later, I’ll return to the Perry Scheme and show how Joseph Smith compares to the later positions, demonstrating cognitive and ethical growth in the prophet that Riskas, who is clearly stuck at Position 2, does not show. Riskas has merely exchanged the locations of [Page 137]his labels for those who he sees as TRUE authorities and those who are confused and are frauds. The church is an assembly of people, individuals, at individual positions of development, and that individual development cannot be bypassed by institutional fiat. Complaining about the presence of people with such attitudes within the church is like complaining about the need for different classrooms for children of different ages. We're not robots, pushed out of a factory with full capacity, but people, born naked and new. And we are raised by and among a range of other people. And people at Position two need leaders they can understand in the present, as well as other leaders who can nurture their progress over time. Hope says: Quote I like some of what you're doing for sure, looking at parallels in the bible and other metaphors for true and living. What I would like to see with respect to my critique is an evaluation of true and living in a modern context that applies directly to the current times and culture. Not saying that some of these older traditions don't also apply, but a focus on the present needs and how many of them are unique to our day. My reading is a critique and evaluation of how people in a modern context misapply their misreading. The whole point of my advocacy for decades is to address the ongoing crisis among people like yourself that happens to be generated by the misreading both by you and by other members and outside critics. It's about setting expectations correctly, and we cannot set our expectations properly if we do not read carefully. If we start with the block of 30 words in D&C 1:30, and end with three that we think carries the whole meaning and intent of the original 30, something is amiss. And then there is the whole of D&C 1 as context. I find D&C 1 overall to be an amazing and profound text, worth careful study, and rewarding and enlightening. It is the single most marked up chapter in my own scriptures. Nibley gave a talk on "Leaders and Management" in which he observed that "leaders set the highest example." That has nothing to do with office or curriculum. Look to the highest examples. The charge to "prepare our minds," and "seek out of the best books wisdom," does not mean, wait for correlation to tell you what to read and think. Hope says: Quote While I'm sure there are unique exceptions to how people responded to the Nov 2015 policy. However, the vast majority of people I've interacted with, including extended family members and friends and also the majority of people in the LGBT community that I've interacted with were deeply hurt by this policy. Pointing out the exceptions does not make for an accurate representation of the overwhelming negative impacts. Yes, the vast majority of people demonstrated all sorts of outrage and trauma based on their interpretation of the policy, but can the vast majority of people point to any specific case where a child living exclusively with a Gay or Lesbian couple was actually denied LDS baptism either against or in harmony with the wishes of those parents? And there is no policy about not being allowed to attend LDS meetings, baptized or not. Visitors are welcome. I told two stories of people known to me with the children and ex-husband were traumatically affected by the decision of the mother/wife to enter into a series of lesbian relationships. At least three of the four children involved had been baptized already, when the spouse left the marriage, and still they went to church, yes. The other child was baptized with the mother's consent and is now inactive, which, given the lifestyle and companionship involved, in not surprising. (Where is the concern for innocence in this case?) And this kind of actual story is treated as something exceptional for the circumstance, rather than quite typical of the circumstance. But accounts are not as politically useful, lacking leverage for outrage, so, the stories don't attract any attention. And the pain does not count. My point is that the outrage remains wildly disproportionate to the existence of specific actual cases (do you personally know any?), and also involves a misreading, as though a considerate delay and deference to legal adulthood is equivalent to institutional advocacy of eternal damnation of innocents. The mindset is not at all compatible with the Joseph Smith quote that I provided about God judging people in the context of the time, and culture and opportunities, and not against some absolute. It is ironic that so many people actually left the church themselves, based on their misreading, misunderstanding, and outrage, thus, choosing for themselves the condition that they supposed was intolerable to permit. And as an alternative to Position 2 of the Perry Scheme "One true group", there is Position 6: Quote POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen. FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT. Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength. He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth. He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical. And beyond that, Positions 7, 8, and 9. My essay makes that case that Joseph Smith, by example and precept, encourages progress to Position 9. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 1
mfbukowski Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 15 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Truth claims aren't accepted because of their "utility," they are accepted because we believe them to be true. Hence the expression "truth claims." If we accepted or rejected them based upon their utility, they'd be "utility claims.".... We believe it to be true because God revealed it. Which is a rather startling approach to a truth claim. Again, we accept them because they are true, not because they confer benefits. Believing Latter-day Saints accept the Church's truth claims. (That's virtually tautological.) Rejecting the Church's truth claims is what is known as "apostasy." There exists no definition of "truth" which will do what you want it to do. If you actually believe Alma 32, (Which is revealed and canonized obviously), "truth" IS "utility" Quote 26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. 27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. 29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. 30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good. 34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand. 35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? 36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) On 1/22/2018 at 7:35 AM, hope_for_things said: I found a lot of hits when I did a search of that phrase "one true church" on lds.org. One interesting article was by Elder Oaks recently, see the attached link. He seems to conflate true and living church with only true church throughout this article. From my experience these phrases are treated the same way by your average orthodox member, no distinction for them. How its treated in Mormon culture in this case is more important than arguing over whether there should or shouldn't be an actual distinction. https://www.lds.org/youth/article/only-true-living-church?lang=eng I'm speaking to observations I have of the culture. I'm sure I could likely find different talks on lds.org that reinforce these ideas. For example, I was reading Mormons and the Bible by Phil Barlow recently and in there he has a section talking about Bruce R. McConkie and how adversely he looked at science and scholarly materials. After reading some of the statements McConkie made, which were even more extreme than how I had imagined, I was reminded just how vehemently some orthodox people are when it comes to this mistrust of science. I imagine that you've observed similar things that I've mentioned here, maybe not all because you live outside of Utah, but I'm sure that your more progressive area isn't completely immune from these things. Of course I have seen it. But in that article I am not seeing what you are seeing- but thanks for actually finding the phrase on LDS org which was the challenge I put forth. But notice he gives "one true church" a special definition Quote Because of this declaration of the Lord, we refer to this, His Church—our Church—as the “only true Church.” He then uses this qualified definition of "one true church" to actually explain what is meant by a "true and living church" including these items Quote Three features—(1) fulness of doctrine, (2) power of the priesthood, and (3) testimony of Jesus Christ—explain why God has declared and why we as His servants maintain that this is the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth. I am not responsible for other people conflating whatever they conflate. Note that these include the sources of what gives our church an open canon- Priesthood and testimony- which is NOT what is usually included in the idea of "unchanging infallible truth" which IS the usual meaning of "one true church" He never makes the claim that we have a unified, infallible, unchanging corpus of truth- he is simply defining- for the purposes of the article- what he means by "one true church" in this article! I am not responsible for other people conflating whatever they conflate, so the argument that others believe that we claim unchanging infallible truth is not my fault or really my problem either. Those folks are misunderstanding what the scriptures actually say and what Elder Oaks says here as well. Either you want a world view that makes sense or you don't. I don't see how the other view makes sense. If they can make sense of it, I have not seen that. I feel no responsibility to support confusion especially when it is not scriptural and has no basis but what silly things people have been taught and accepted unthinkingly. In a nice way of course. Edited January 23, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
Stargazer Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 21 hours ago, pogi said: Yes, writing is one of the natural aptitudes of an INFP personality type (which Kevin is). Some are obviously more gifted than others, as I too am an INFP That Meyers-Briggs thing, again? Is it truly accurate, or just one more controversial theory? I have tested out as INFP-A myself. And I love to write. Not sure how good I am at it, though.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, Stargazer said: That Meyers-Briggs thing, again? Is it truly accurate, or just one more controversial theory? I have tested out as INFP-A myself. And I love to write. Not sure how good I am at it, though. I'm very fond of it, and find it both practical and useful and easy to understand and use. I have taken other tests, such as the MMPI (Michigan Multi-phasic Personality Inventory), which did nothing practical for me, and did nothing to help the California Therapist/Counselor who administered it identify the real problem I was having back then. Some professionals sneer at it certainly. But it is the most used test in the world, for the reason that it is well supported with a lot of research, and is practical, useful and easy to understand and use. Had I taken it in High School, it would have greatly helped me avoid mistakes in my groping around through different, unsuitable majors. For example, most managers are ESTJ and I, an INFP, the opposite, spent some unprofitable time taking U of U classes aimed toward business management. I've got several MBTI based books, including Gifts Differing, Type Logic, Do What You Are, Please Understand Me 1+ 2, and a few others. My current technical writing manager had us all take it at work. I knew my answer all ready just from the books, but enjoyed looking the official test. Some people complain that it pigeon holes people, but most people I know find it liberating, removing the outside pressure to conform to social norms assumed by other types. I personally found it powerfully validating, like being able to name Rumplestiltskin. This is reasonable place to start: http://www.typelogic.com/ I once gave a Sunstone Presentation in SLC on Personality Type and Social Conflict in LDS culture, focusing on the different approaches by ESTJ types (often the managers, who respect office and tradition) and NTs, concentrated in academia, and not at all concerned with office and tradition. And there is the issue of stereotyping all women as ISFJ, when that amounts to 6% if the population. I have an ISFJ mother, and an INTJ sister, and an ENFP wife. And an INFP daughter. My closest friend from high school days is INFJ. My family is quite odd, heavily introverted and intuitive. Dad, INTJ (wrote his own compiler for an IBM 360, and was told after he had been running it for two months, not to try to replace what IBM provided), Mom, INFJ (very traditional and conservative, a teacher), Colin, ISTP (the best athlete and worst student), Merilee (INTJ, very contrary to cultural stereotypes for women), Noel, INTP, Brian, xNTP, me, INFP, and Blake, INTP. Nowadays I supplement my use of MBTI with the Perry Scheme, and addiction recovery literature. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
kiwi57 Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 17 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Unfortunately not much that can be debated here, it’s basically circular reasoning. It seems to me if this is the best that modern Mormonism can bring that it will have an increasingly difficult time as the culture continues to become more secular. Well, the culture may indeed become more secular, but the Church will continue to be sacral. Why would you expect it to do anything else? 17 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Personally I find that sad because I find elements of Mormonism to be very inspirational. It's difficult for me to see how we could retain any of those inspirational elements while changing our fundamental nature in order to accommodate the secular culture. Has it ever occurred to you that some of the things you hope for might be rather muddled?
mfbukowski Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: If you don’t believe in literal salvation, does that Imply you believe in some sort of non-literal salvation? If there is such a thing as a belief in a non-literal salvation, it would be most interesting to have two or three elements of that kind of salvation explained. But if you’re unbelief in a literal salvation means you don’t believe in any kind of salvation at all, why such an intense daily interest in Mormonism, the paramount example of a religion of literal salvation? One possible answer for this is that it gives more of a "psychological salvation" When one repents (does " all that one can do" to rectify past mistakes against people, one can experience a release of guilt and a sense of peace that secular people can see as analogous to the effects of the atonement. When one tries to be "all that one can be" one feels a sense of satisfaction and peace for living a life well spent. Psychologically secular people would understand this while they might not understand placing such feelings in the realm of the supernatural- it is a kind of naturalistic "salvation" and the creation of peace and meaning in one's life The gospel just plain works. Regardless of your beliefs, if you live it, your life will be better for living it, pragmatically. Again back to the Didache- you are living the "way of life" as opposed to the "way of death" which leads to death. Adultery and immoral behavior leads to grief and broken homes, getting in trouble for stealing and ripping people off is not ultimately a pleasant way to live for atheists OR believers Feelings that one is speaking to God might be understood by secular people as consulting deeply with one's unconscious and uniting one's internal compass for what makes you happy with your outward behaviors, avoiding psychological conflict etc. That is essentially the whole concept behind psychotherapy- to unify unconscious drives with one's behavior in a positive way. So yes, there can be a form of secular "salvation" from guilt, fear, and grief resulting in a profound sense of peace. In my opinion though Mormonism takes these natural principles onto another level. We believe that God chooses to follow natural laws himself so of course there would be similarities in our following natural laws of "what works to make humans happy" with our Human Man of Holiness. As I have said before, when God is a Man, Humanism becomes theology. THAT is the difference with Mormonism. We have a supernatural explanation for the natural world around us in which all humans live. Not recommending it at all- but just fyi as a tool for discussing this with secular people. Our spiritual experiences are based in Alma 32- which others would see simply as rules by which happiness is achieved for anyone. Plant the seed and let it grow and experiment on which seeds bloom into a happy life. The principles work for everyone- the difference is we know where they came from!
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: The church is an assembly of people, individuals, at individual positions of development, and that individual development cannot be bypassed by institutional fiat. Complaining about the presence of people with such attitudes within the church is like complaining about the need for different classrooms for children of different ages. We're not robots, pushed out of a factory with full capacity, but people, born naked and new. And we are raised by and among a range of other people. And people at Position two need leaders they can understand in the present, as well as other leaders who can nurture their progress over time. The Perry scheme which I haven't studied, sounds very interesting, and reminds me of James Fowler's stages of faith, or Spiral Dynamics. All different but similar ways of looking at human cognitive development. http://www.theliturgists.com/spiral-dynamics-visuals/ The question I have with this Perry scheme example, is that you stated that this was used to study how college students developed in a new university environment. I imagine that these same college students were exposed to different ways of thinking that helped them to move from positions 1 & 2 further down the developmental scheme. How can this nurturing take place if leaders (professors) are only focused on understanding the students in their present state? From my vantage point, most LDS leaders are themselves stuck in these early positions, and aren't trying to nurture individuals to progress and grow on a developmental spectrum. They largely can't, because they themselves are stuck somewhere in the early stages of development, so how can they possibly nurture others to navigate forward? 17 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: My reading is a critique and evaluation of how people in a modern context misapply their misreading. The whole point of my advocacy for decades is to address the ongoing crisis among people like yourself that happens to be generated by the misreading both by you and by other members and outside critics. It's about setting expectations correctly, and we cannot set our expectations properly if we do not read carefully. If we start with the block of 30 words in D&C 1:30, and end with three that we think carries the whole meaning and intent of the original 30, something is amiss. And then there is the whole of D&C 1 as context. I find D&C 1 overall to be an amazing and profound text, worth careful study, and rewarding and enlightening. It is the single most marked up chapter in my own scriptures. I appreciate that you've put your focus on this important issue and you certainly have a lot of experience and I'm sure you've had significant influence with people over the course of your time. I'm trying to be open to what you're saying and I'm thinking about these comments. While I don't privilege scripture in the same way that you do, I can still find nuggets of value in these texts, and I like that you're close readings helps add context through a more complex review of the material. 21 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Yes, the vast majority of people demonstrated all sorts of outrage and trauma based on their interpretation of the policy, but can the vast majority of people point to any specific case where a child living exclusively with a Gay or Lesbian couple was actually denied LDS baptism either against or in harmony with the wishes of those parents? And there is no policy about not being allowed to attend LDS meetings, baptized or not. Visitors are welcome. I told two stories of people known to me with the children and ex-husband were traumatically affected by the decision of the mother/wife to enter into a series of lesbian relationships. At least three of the four children involved had been baptized already, when the spouse left the marriage, and still they went to church, yes. The other child was baptized with the mother's consent and is now inactive, which, given the lifestyle and companionship involved, in not surprising. (Where is the concern for innocence in this case?) And this kind of actual story is treated as something exceptional for the circumstance, rather than quite typical of the circumstance. But accounts are not as politically useful, lacking leverage for outrage, so, the stories don't attract any attention. And the pain does not count. I have a first cousin who was impacted exactly circumstances that you mention. This cousin's child was refused baptism until turning 18. In this particular situation, the parents did not want the child to be baptized, but the child wanted to, and was baptized recently after turning 18. As I've gotten more involved in the LGBT community I have become aware of many others who've been negatively impacted. Trust me when I say that this policy has had a severe negative impact on this community. I don't want to get into the specific debate of the policy on this thread. I have serious problems with it both from a impact to real people perspective and from a theological perspective as I find the foundations of the policy to contradict what I believe are core components of the gospel message. 26 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: And beyond that, Positions 7, 8, and 9. My essay makes that case that Joseph Smith, by example and precept, encourages progress to Position 9. Lastly, Kevin, my impression from reading you is that you are very thoughtful and that you are careful to approach every conversation with respect to others and with patience. I appreciate that. As I mentioned earlier, I believe you're having an impact for good and I'm sure that there are many people for which your experience and your vantage point will ring true and be influential. But as I like to say on many subjects, one size doesn't fit all. I see a number of people that I'm involved in who are struggling with their faith journeys, who are contemplating leaving Mormonism or religion all together and who may be wrestling and suffering with their faith journey. I'm interested in helping people through empathy and acknowledging the things that are uniquely challenging to each of them. I've found that doing this act alone can lift burdens. I listened to a recent Maxwell Institute podcast interview with Richard Bushman today, a good interview and he made some interesting comments. He was asked about people that come to him with faith struggles and how he responds, and he said he used to try and answer their questions, but never had any success with that strategy and instead now just asks them if they have faith in Jesus Christ. I heard a similar sentiment from Marlin Jensen in a discussion he had last year at the 50th anniversary event for Dialogue and he emphasized this idea of faith being the ultimately most important thing. But then later in the interview Bushman mentioned that he has some children who've left the church and how he's reconciled that his children can leave the church but that he emphasizes that they are still part of the family. I think there is a segment of people that Bushman, Jensen, and even perhaps yourself, can't reach through these concepts of holding onto faith as an important emphasis. Bushman seemed to think that a person can lose sensitivity to the spirit if someone lets go of a faith in Jesus. My observation is that this isn't the case. I see many people that I believe are sensitive to the spirit, without a belief in traditional religious constructions. I believe there can be a type of sensitivity to whatever the spirit is, our emotions, parts of our mind that we don't understand how they work as well. These could be insight not coming from our prefrontal cortex logic centers of our brain, but insights coming from other parts of our brain, that we can still be sensitive to through practices that are completely outside of the religion umbrella. Practices like mindfulness that can help a person build these sensitivities in a construct that doesn't include supernatural beliefs or religious language at all. https://mi.byu.edu/mip-75-bushman/ I'm interested in engaging with people where they are at, similar to what your earlier Perry scheme talked about. I'm not interested in proving whether or not Joseph was a high level of development on the Perry scheme, because what's the point of that, still an appeal to authority of some kind. I'm interested in ideas that work for people today, and unfortunately all of the baggage of religious dogma, including these exclusivity truth claims, muddies the water for so many people. I think some have a form of PTSD from their religious upbringing. And after people have these kinds of negative experiences in religious contexts, I see more benefit from clothing the ideas of spirituality in secular terms first, and then later perhaps much later they will be open to seeing some value in religion, rather than telling people they have to hold onto faith in Jesus first and foremost. For many people they have to let go of Jesus to find that there is meaning in life outside of organized religion, and then later perhaps they can begin to see that there are strong metaphorical truths found in religious clothing, but that can only happen after they have healed from the trauma caused by religion in the first place. This is a different approach, and I think it works for some people, as I'm sure your approach works for others. One side does not fit all. But one thing I'm hoping we can move away from as a culture is the exclusivity emphasis, both for those who struggle with their faith, and for those that are complete believers as I think the cons outweigh the benefits for both groups.
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Of course I have seen it. But in that article I am not seeing what you are seeing- but thanks for actually finding the phrase on LDS org which was the challenge I put forth. But notice he gives "one true church" a special definition He then uses this qualified definition of "one true church" to actually explain what is meant by a "true and living church" including these items Note that these include the sources of what gives our church an open canon- Priesthood and testimony- which is NOT what is usually included in the idea of "unchanging infallible truth" which IS the usual meaning of "one true church" He never makes the claim that we have a unified, infallible, unchanging corpus of truth- he is simply defining- for the purposes of the article- what he means by "one true church" in this article! I am not responsible for other people conflating whatever they conflate, so the argument that others believe that we claim unchanging infallible truth is not my fault or really my problem either. Those folks are misunderstanding what the scriptures actually say and what Elder Oaks says here as well. Either you want a world view that makes sense or you don't. I don't see how the other view makes sense. If they can make sense of it, I have not seen that. I feel no responsibility to support confusion especially when it is not scriptural and has no basis but what silly things people have been taught and accepted unthinkingly. In a nice way of course. Well, if the choice is between "unchanging infallible truth" and exclusive priesthood authority, I guess I'd take the exclusive authority as the lesser of two evils. I personally don't think the exclusive authority claim has a net positive effect for the members either, and I think it should be softened even further. One way this could be re-articulated is by emphasizing that God has a work to do among all peoples all over the world, and that the inspiration within Mormonism has to be viewed like a giant puzzle that God is working on with all kinds of pieces. The Mormon piece is just one of many pieces in this puzzle that represents the plan of salvation. No one piece is greater than another, but each plays a part in the puzzle of the history of humanity, and the Mormon piece is an important part. The puzzle can't be completed without it, but neither can this puzzle be completed without all the other pieces. So authority is just within the context of the Mormon enterprise. It is not exclusively the only authority that exists, its just the authority over the Mormon puzzle piece. Its not even necessarily perfect in its current practice (women are excluded) and we need additional revelation and restoration to continue to refine the authority within the Mormon puzzle piece. Not a perfect metaphor, but I think you get the picture of what I'm saying.
Recommended Posts