hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Author Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, kiwi57 said: 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? 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? I see Mormonism as a constantly evolving project that requires re-translation for every new generation and in response to the times. This is what a living faith means.
kiwi57 Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I see Mormonism as a constantly evolving project that requires re-translation for every new generation and in response to the times. This is what a living faith means. Perhaps; but a living faith is a kind of faith, and it seems fairly clear to me that a faith is not a social club for people who like to sing hymns, but a community of actual belief. A living faith should expect to be at odds with a dying world.
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2018 Author Posted January 24, 2018 14 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Perhaps; but a living faith is a kind of faith, and it seems fairly clear to me that a faith is not a social club for people who like to sing hymns, but a community of actual belief. A living faith should expect to be at odds with a dying world. I largely agree, especially the community parts. I also think that diversity is important for the healthy life of any community. As for the world we are all part of it, and I believe it’s both living and dying in different ways, but this is the central metaphor of the gospel, one of life and death and rebirth.
mfbukowski Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 5 hours ago, hope_for_things said: 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. I don't think that works - certainly not doctrinally but even logically The very notion of "authority" connotes .... authority. Either you have it or you don't. Belief in authority is what creates authority. Would you stop for a cop if you didn't believe he had authority? I suppose you could think of it like Nevada Authority doesn't apply in Utah, but we are talking about God here. Unless of course you think Ganesh has different authorities than Shiva or something like that but for monotheism I think that notion is logically problematic. 1
Exiled Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 On 1/22/2018 at 1:15 PM, mfbukowski said: Well been having a bit of trouble getting replies back for some technical reason. Bottom line: Big difference Ben Spackman And I see Kevin has already answered it for you- I tried to link to that earlier and had problems, see Kevin's answer above Ok. So, you still believe that mormonism is the one and only church that has God's authority to baptize and perform required temple rituals, etc.? Also, do you still believe that God priviledges his prophet, president nelson, over other religious leaders?
JLHPROF Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, Exiled said: Ok. So, you still believe that mormonism is the one and only church that has God's authority to baptize and perform required temple rituals, etc.? Also, do you still believe that God priviledges his prophet, president nelson, over other religious leaders? Yes and yes.
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2018 Author Posted January 24, 2018 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I don't think that works - certainly not doctrinally but even logically The very notion of "authority" connotes .... authority. Either you have it or you don't. Belief in authority is what creates authority. Would you stop for a cop if you didn't believe he had authority? I suppose you could think of it like Nevada Authority doesn't apply in Utah, but we are talking about God here. Unless of course you think Ganesh has different authorities than Shiva or something like that but for monotheism I think that notion is logically problematic. The Nevada vs. Utah authority might be a good way to look at it. All authority is different and unique to the groups that wield it, and its all God's authority maybe? Actually, I just have a problem with claiming authority for God at all, too many abuses throughout the history of the human race have been wielded under the auspices of God's authority. What about just eliminating the idea of God's authority all together in religion? Why is it even an important piece in the theological puzzle?
JLHPROF Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: The Nevada vs. Utah authority might be a good way to look at it. All authority is different and unique to the groups that wield it, and its all God's authority maybe? Actually, I just have a problem with claiming authority for God at all, too many abuses throughout the history of the human race have been wielded under the auspices of God's authority. What about just eliminating the idea of God's authority all together in religion? Why is it even an important piece in the theological puzzle? Because without authority there is no gospel. God's authority, Christ's authority, the authority Christ has given to mortal men. Some may bristle at the idea of authority over them, but it is key to almost every aspect of the gospel. Even Christ's love for us only matters because he had the authority to stand as sacrifice for our sins. The atonement was only necessary because for God to remain God (keep his authority) requires that laws be kept and justice served. You can't get away from authority. As Joseph taught, "There is no salvation between the two lids of the Bible without a legal administrator."
mfbukowski Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 10 hours ago, Exiled said: Ok. So, you still believe that mormonism is the one and only church that has God's authority to baptize and perform required temple rituals, etc.? Also, do you still believe that God priviledges his prophet, president nelson, over other religious leaders? It's the only church I have found which serves these functions in my life which I find coherent with all my other beliefs, yes. No one else exalts Man which I think is the highest form of religion. It is humanism raised to postulate that man is divine. Authority is something we give to a belief set, it is not something objective. Since we are the only ones with temple rituals constructed to exalt man to the highest extent any human has ever managed before, yes I accept that authority to do so. Show me another church which exalts humanity to the level of gods and yet provides the concept of the atonement, and I will check it out. Philosophically I believe that humankind creates reality. That makes us gods. Got another religion like that? I found Mormonism it didn't find me. The philosophy came first, acceptance of the rituals as a device to further my understanding came second. And yes of course I give them authority or they would not have importance in my life. Anything which has importance to you- including your investigation here- has "authority" or you would not do it. Doing unimportant things is a waste of time. Other churches have the authority which their believers give them. Everybody has their own path to happiness- I think mine is best as I am sure you think yours is as well. You are out to convert us poor uninformed stupid Mormons to your way, right?
mfbukowski Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: The Nevada vs. Utah authority might be a good way to look at it. All authority is different and unique to the groups that wield it, and its all God's authority maybe? Actually, I just have a problem with claiming authority for God at all, too many abuses throughout the history of the human race have been wielded under the auspices of God's authority. What about just eliminating the idea of God's authority all together in religion? Why is it even an important piece in the theological puzzle? What God wants is unknowable except as how he reveals it to us. To me that is such a "DUH" principle that I cannot believe we are discussing it frankly. Suppose the god Swacko is the true God that has sole authority in the universe and is the true creator. In order to worship Swacko properly we must stand up three times, raise our arms and yell at the loudest we are able, the sacred name of "Swacko". The only problem is that only the followers of Swacko know that, but unfortunately there are none on this planet. Here no one knows the truth. We have no way to know of Swacko, so everyone on earth is going to hell. The point is that if God does not reveal his will to us individually, we cannot GIVE Him authority! THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TEMPLE IS TO PROVIDE THOSE WHO HAVE NOT HEARD OF CHRIST to acknowledge Him as Christ- the annointed One. DUH! We cannot do that until God has revealed himself to us. Swacko has not, and never will because he is imaginary. But by accepting the church we GIVE it authority in our lives- and THAT is what makes the difference An unknown god has no authority for an individual. So faith comes first, not the authority. No faith no authority- you do not acknowledge God as your authority unless you believe in Him first! 1
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2018 Author Posted January 24, 2018 28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Because without authority there is no gospel. God's authority, Christ's authority, the authority Christ has given to mortal men. Some may bristle at the idea of authority over them, but it is key to almost every aspect of the gospel. Even Christ's love for us only matters because he had the authority to stand as sacrifice for our sins. The atonement was only necessary because for God to remain God (keep his authority) requires that laws be kept and justice served. You can't get away from authority. As Joseph taught, "There is no salvation between the two lids of the Bible without a legal administrator." I don't see anything about the gospel message that hinges on authority. Why do you say authority is central to the gospel? To me the gospel is all about love, service, helping the marginalized, life, death, rebirth, forgiveness, grace and redemption. I don't think any of these concepts have an important connection to the authority claim. I think institutions have misused authority throughout history (D&C 121 - no power or influence can or ought to me maintained by virtue of the priesthood). When Joseph was at his most humble in Liberty Jail, I think he got a glimpse into something profound in these verses. Think about those statements in D&C 121. No power can be maintained by virtue of the priesthood. Well, what about the power to make policy decisions for the church? If those policy decisions aren't in alignment with these principles (persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness, pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile), then amen to the priesthood authority of that man. This is so profound and simple, I wish the church culture would consider the magnitude of these statements. If you can think of any important gospel theology that can't exist without the strong authority claim, please let me know, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I believe is vital.
JLHPROF Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I don't see anything about the gospel message that hinges on authority. Why do you say authority is central to the gospel? To me the gospel is all about love, service, helping the marginalized, life, death, rebirth, forgiveness, grace and redemption. I don't think any of these concepts have an important connection to the authority claim. Except that they do have authority behind them. The very premise of Christianity is accepting Christ as Lord, a position of authority. The idea that we need to receive redemption is because we have violated the laws of God that have authority over our lives. We pray for forgiveness to the administrator of those laws. We show love to Christ by keeping his commandments (including service to others). When Christ commanded that we love one another why do we obey that command? Because of his authority. Faith, repentance, baptism, loving our neighbors. All the most basic principles of the gospel that you revere are completely connected to God's authority, Christ's authority, and the authority given by them to their followers. 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: If you can think of any important gospel theology that can't exist without the strong authority claim, please let me know, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I believe is vital. The fall and the atonement. Baptism. Repentance. Christianity as a whole. All based on principles of authority.
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2018 Author Posted January 24, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: What God wants is unknowable except as how he reveals it to us. To me that is such a "DUH" principle that I cannot believe we are discussing it frankly. Suppose the god Swacko is the true God that has sole authority in the universe and is the true creator. In order to worship Swacko properly we must stand up three times, raise our arms and yell at the loudest we are able, the sacred name of "Swacko". The only problem is that only the followers of Swacko know that, but unfortunately there are none on this planet. Here no one knows the truth. We have no way to know of Swacko, so everyone on earth is going to hell. The point is that if God does not reveal his will to us individually, we cannot GIVE Him authority! THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TEMPLE IS TO PROVIDE THOSE WHO HAVE NOT HEARD OF CHRIST to acknowledge Him as Christ- the annointed One. DUH! We cannot do that until God has revealed himself to us. Swacko has not, and never will because he is imaginary. But by accepting the church we GIVE it authority in our lives- and THAT is what makes the difference An unknown god has no authority for an individual. So faith comes first, not the authority. No faith no authority- you do not acknowledge God as your authority unless you believe in Him first! First I thought you were saying that because there are all these different concepts about God, life everywhere on earth and in the universe will have different concepts of God (swacko and everything else). Therefore what would be the point if one of these concepts of God was the "true God that has sole authority in the universe". It seems to me that this is an argument that there isn't a true God with sole authority. But then you say that this is the point of the temple. The whole point of Mormonism, is that we're the one religion in the universe that actually is correct. We are the followers of Swacko, and the point of the temple is for us to do all these vicarious rituals for everyone else who's damned without our intervention somehow. I have the sense that I'm not fully getting your point here. The last half makes more sense to me. We give the church its authority, that is true. But that is the same for all religions. So wouldn't this just prove my earlier comments about each religion having authority for its members. If authority is something we grant, and if there are countless different conceptions of God, what's the point of Mormon temple rituals when they have no efficacy for those people that don't accept them as authoritative? (And I'm not saying this in the sense that those people will be damned to hell, I'm just saying that they don't give Mormonism authority in their lives, so from that perspective its not applicable to them.)
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2018 Author Posted January 24, 2018 52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Except that they do have authority behind them. The very premise of Christianity is accepting Christ as Lord, a position of authority. The idea that we need to receive redemption is because we have violated the laws of God that have authority over our lives. We pray for forgiveness to the administrator of those laws. We show love to Christ by keeping his commandments (including service to others). When Christ commanded that we love one another why do we obey that command? Because of his authority. Faith, repentance, baptism, loving our neighbors. All the most basic principles of the gospel that you revere are completely connected to God's authority, Christ's authority, and the authority given by them to their followers. But its not the same thing. I think the premise of Christianity is not accepting Christ as Lord, that part isn't even important. The premise of Christianity are the things I mentioned earlier. Why is the premise accepting Christ, why is that even a valuable act in any way? As a missionary that served in the bible belt I constantly was in wonder by the evangelicals that wanted to get me to say words of a prayer in order to accept Jesus as Lord and savior, and that those actual words would have some meaning and power in my life. To me, they were just words. I think fear and obedience because of authority are at the bottom of the hierarchy of reasons to do something. I'll be honest, I don't see any connection between the things I mentioned earlier and authority. If acting out of a reverence for authority is the key to the way you see the gospel, then I just don't get it.
mfbukowski Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: First I thought you were saying that because there are all these different concepts about God, life everywhere on earth and in the universe will have different concepts of God (swacko and everything else). Therefore what would be the point if one of these concepts of God was the "true God that has sole authority in the universe". It seems to me that this is an argument that there isn't a true God with sole authority. But then you say that this is the point of the temple. The whole point of Mormonism, is that we're the one religion in the universe that actually is correct. We are the followers of Swacko, and the point of the temple is for us to do all these vicarious rituals for everyone else who's damned without our intervention somehow. I have the sense that I'm not fully getting your point here. The last half makes more sense to me. We give the church its authority, that is true. But that is the same for all religions. So wouldn't this just prove my earlier comments about each religion having authority for its members. If authority is something we grant, and if there are countless different conceptions of God, what's the point of Mormon temple rituals when they have no efficacy for those people that don't accept them as authoritative? (And I'm not saying this in the sense that those people will be damned to hell, I'm just saying that they don't give Mormonism authority in their lives, so from that perspective its not applicable to them.) It's semantics. Authority is a man made creation- the question is was it created by the Man of Holiness? It depends on your beliefs. I see God often as a paradigm for the Ideal Human as do all Mormons if the realize it or not. In that perspective, your question becomes semantic. If it is "given by God" it is given by a Man. If it is something objective- where is the scientific evidence for the existence of "authority" in the universe? The evidence does not exist because science specifically does not even recognize a "thing" like "authority" which presumes an Intelligent Purpose. Obviously the belief in objective authority is itself a religious belief, so I am glad you are so religious still! Is the UN the one true political authority for the earth? It is if you believe it is, but not all believe it. There are no experiments or observations to prove or disprove it THEREFORE there can be no agreement, therefore the belief by definition is not "objective" but "subjective". I am not sure what you do not see. This is pragmatism here- if you don't know it you can't believe it, if you don't believe it, it is just someone's fable. It is my belief in God that gives me the peace knowing that He has authority over my life. I have no objective evidence of that authority other than what I believe. I can say it over and over in different ways but that is about the best I can do. It is precisely like the historicity of the atonement. The historicity is itself a religious belief which is crucial to the religion for some. 1
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2018 Author Posted January 24, 2018 35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It's semantics. Authority is a man made creation- the question is was it created by the Man of Holiness? It depends on your beliefs. I see God often as a paradigm for the Ideal Human as do all Mormons if the realize it or not. In that perspective, your question becomes semantic. If it is "given by God" it is given by a Man. If it is something objective- where is the scientific evidence for the existence of "authority" in the universe? The evidence does not exist because science specifically does not even recognize a "thing" like "authority" which presumes an Intelligent Purpose. Obviously the belief in objective authority is itself a religious belief, so I am glad you are so religious still! Is the UN the one true political authority for the earth? It is if you believe it is, but not all believe it. There are no experiments or observations to prove or disprove it THEREFORE there can be no agreement, therefore the belief by definition is not "objective" but "subjective". I am not sure what you do not see. This is pragmatism here- if you don't know it you can't believe it, if you don't believe it, it is just someone's fable. It is my belief in God that gives me the peace knowing that He has authority over my life. I have no objective evidence of that authority other than what I believe. I can say it over and over in different ways but that is about the best I can do. It is precisely like the historicity of the atonement. The historicity is itself a religious belief which is crucial to the religion for some. All of this makes sense to me, and sounds more like the MFB that I'm used to reading. You threw me for a loop with your assertion about the temple, because that statement seems to contradict your other points.
kiwi57 Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 20 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I largely agree, especially the community parts. I also think that diversity is important for the healthy life of any community. That might depend on what you mean by "diversity." Do you mean actual diversity, or the trendy-leftie "diversity" that is basically a codeword for "people who agree with us?" Because, if you mean actual diversity, then it seems to be that the world is a much more diverse place as long as there are still communities that don't slavishly follow the trends of wider society. 20 hours ago, hope_for_things said: As for the world we are all part of it, and I believe it’s both living and dying in different ways, but this is the central metaphor of the gospel, one of life and death and rebirth. Happily, there are still those of us who believe it to be more than mere metaphor.
kiwi57 Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 6:02 AM, 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. Oh dear. So you're telling us that you want to attack the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, but you're so emotionally fragile that you need a "safe space" to do it in - and you expect to find that safe space on a Mormon forum?
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2018 Author Posted January 24, 2018 10 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: That might depend on what you mean by "diversity." Do you mean actual diversity, or the trendy-leftie "diversity" that is basically a codeword for "people who agree with us?" Because, if you mean actual diversity, then it seems to be that the world is a much more diverse place as long as there are still communities that don't slavishly follow the trends of wider society. Happily, there are still those of us who believe it to be more than mere metaphor. Not sure what you mean by actual diversity. The diversity I'm referring to is essentially, race, sex, gender, age, ethnicity, religious, etc.
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2018 Author Posted January 24, 2018 12 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Happily, there are still those of us who believe it to be more than mere metaphor. I think many times metaphor is actually more meaningful and more true than the literal. Metaphor can have meaning and applicability outside the bounds of the transactional and simple. This is the essence of meaning making. But this is also a concept that its hard for some to comprehend. 1
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2018 Author Posted January 24, 2018 11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Oh dear. So you're telling us that you want to attack the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, but you're so emotionally fragile that you need a "safe space" to do it in - and you expect to find that safe space on a Mormon forum? Appropriate boundary setting.
Exiled Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: It's the only church I have found which serves these functions in my life which I find coherent with all my other beliefs, yes. No one else exalts Man which I think is the highest form of religion. It is humanism raised to postulate that man is divine. Authority is something we give to a belief set, it is not something objective. Since we are the only ones with temple rituals constructed to exalt man to the highest extent any human has ever managed before, yes I accept that authority to do so. Show me another church which exalts humanity to the level of gods and yet provides the concept of the atonement, and I will check it out. Philosophically I believe that humankind creates reality. That makes us gods. Got another religion like that? I found Mormonism it didn't find me. The philosophy came first, acceptance of the rituals as a device to further my understanding came second. And yes of course I give them authority or they would not have importance in my life. Anything which has importance to you- including your investigation here- has "authority" or you would not do it. Doing unimportant things is a waste of time. Other churches have the authority which their believers give them. Everybody has their own path to happiness- I think mine is best as I am sure you think yours is as well. You are out to convert us poor uninformed stupid Mormons to your way, right? I'm not out to convert you but am trying to validate my own decisions if you want to know the truth. I grew up on mormonism being the one true church and wonder why there is a reluctance to own that here. Does it have something to do with when President Hinckley seemed to turn the church to more mainstream christianity? I know the one true church claim really bothered other christians when I was on my mission. Is distancing itself from this claim part of an attempt to be more accepted by mainstream christianity in your opinion?
hope_for_things Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Exiled said: I'm not out to convert you but am trying to validate my own decisions if you want to know the truth. I grew up on mormonism being the one true church and wonder why there is a reluctance to own that here. Does it have something to do with when President Hinckley seemed to turn the church to more mainstream christianity? I know the one true church claim really bothered other christians when I was on my mission. Is distancing itself from this claim part of an attempt to be more accepted by mainstream christianity in your opinion? For me personally it has nothing to do with acceptance in mainstream Christianity. It has to do with improving the healthly attitudes of people inside the Mormon community.
kiwi57 Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: For me personally it has nothing to do with acceptance in mainstream Christianity. It has to do with improving the healthly attitudes of people inside the Mormon community. I guess that's a matter of perspective. Maybe it might be healthy for you to accept that there are still some of us who believe the truth claims of the Church, even though you have "grown beyond" them, or something. The "Mormon community" is the community of people who believe in the teachings of the Church. The rhetorical trickery by which people who've abandoned those teachings still claim to be some sort of "Mormon" - and then take it upon themselves to busy their little bodies by going about correcting our "attitudes" for us - leaves me rather unimpressed.
JLHPROF Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/23/2018 at 7:26 PM, hope_for_things said: I also think that diversity is important for the healthy life of any community. 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The diversity I'm referring to is essentially, race, sex, gender, age, ethnicity, religious, etc. Are you actually suggesting that it would benefit the Mormon community to be more religiously diverse? 😁 I know that the Catholic religion needs a little more Buddhism, and the Baptists could learn a thing or two from the Scientologists. Perhaps Mormons should embrace principles of Wicca. You know, in the interests of diversity. 1
Recommended Posts