mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 8 hours ago, Exiled said: I'm not looking for scientific proof regarding my wife or whether or not your wife is right for you. Maybe they aren't, maybe they are. My point is that you are trying to impose your wife on others and I am saying that you can't be sure she is right for them, only that she is right for you. I feel this is correct. Oh yeah me too. No they are not looking for science even if they think they are. You are both confused by the language. That is straight Wittgenstein. I recommend a hearty dose of "Philosophical Investigations", take two aspirin and call me in the morning. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54889e73e4b0a2c1f9891289/t/564b61a4e4b04eca59c4d232/1447780772744/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf
USU78 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: That is straight Wittgenstein. I recommend a hearty dose of "Philosophical Investigations", take two aspirin and call me in the morning. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54889e73e4b0a2c1f9891289/t/564b61a4e4b04eca59c4d232/1447780772744/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf Except he was a beery swine, who was just as sloshed as Schlegel. 1
pogi Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: I see real merit in virtually all of your posts, as I do in this one. But why can’t we just be honest with ourselves as Latter-day Saints and acknowledge that, in this particular instance, the seed Alma is speaking of a true seed of spiritual witness sent from God that’s meant to be planted in the hearts of investigators of the true Church through the instrumentality of duly-authorized ministers of the true Church and gospel? The seed that Alma is speaking of is the word of God. It is not limited to "duly-authorized ministers of the true church". Alma 32 makes it clear that the seed does not come by missionaries or authorized ministers alone: Quote 23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned. Brigham Young counseled us to receive the word of God, let it come from wherever it may. That counsel has been extensively repeated throughout Mormonism. Mormonism doesn't claim to have hold of every word of God, and we are counseled to go out and find it wherever it may be, in other religions, books, and sciences, etc. In other words, the church is not the source of every seed. There are numberless seeds, or truths, to be tested. It is not just one seed (the church). 17 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Is not the seed of which Alma spoke the seed of true spiritual witness from God that has the potential to sprout and grow to become a full-blown testimony,? Again, there is not just one seed. There is the seed of Charity, the seed of humility, the seed of faith, the seed of hope, the seed of keeping the Sabbath Holy, the seed of prayer, etc. etc. They all need to be planted, nourished, and tested individually, and they will all bear fruit accordingly. As the D&C states, we receive blessings (the fruit) upon obedience to the principles upon which the blessings (fruits) are predicated. Many seeds, many fruits. Don't limit yourself to the fruits of Mormonism, there is so much to feast on outside of Mormonism that it would be a pity to miss-out on the potential for extra spiritual growth and progression in the kingdom of God. What is a "full-blown testimony"? Alma 32 makes it clear that a full-blown testimony of the seed is not the same as a perfect knowledge, and that faith is still required. The only thing that we can be certain of, according to Alma 32, is that the seed bears good fruit; but faith, in general, is still required: Quote 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. 17 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: So why do we think it’s acceptable to go so far afield from the obvious intended meaning of Alma 32 and imagine that it somehow authenticity applies to someone who is taking a liking to a religion that rejects the necessity of the atoning Christ and even goes so far as to reject the existence of God altogether? It seems that in this politically correct age even members of the true Church feel compelled to acknowledge that every religion and every religious claim is equally valid. That is not what we are saying. What I am saying is that there are true seeds everywhere. No single man or church (even ours) has every seed or knows them perfectly. We all rely on faith. We all do the best to adhere to the light we have been given. We all have light and are being led to the fullness. Those who don't belong to our faith but nourish the seeds that they do have, and follow the spirit to the best of their ability, will equally partake in the blessings of exaltation with us. So, how could we claim that their path is not equally valid? Yes, I have faith that this is the one true church, but I don't accept that this is the one church with truth. I do have faith that all mankind require authorized baptism, etc. but no, I don't accept that there is only one path to baptism and ultimate exaltation. 1
pogi Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 11 hours ago, Exiled said: I'm not looking for scientific proof regarding my wife or whether or not your wife is right for you. Maybe they aren't, maybe they are. My point is that you are trying to impose your wife on others and I am saying that you can't be sure she is right for them, only that she is right for you. I feel this is correct. No one is "imposing" their wife on others The analogy of the wife has its limits here because a wife (unlike truth) is not something that you want to share with the rest of the world. So, I will replace "wife" with "seeds". As a church, we are not imposing our seeds upon the world. We are simply saying, "hey look, I planted these seeds and they bore delicious fruit. I have faith that if you plant these seeds , and nourish them, they will bear the same delicious fruit for you." You see, we are not imposing anything. That is a ridiculous accusation. 3
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 1 hour ago, USU78 said: Except he was a beery swine, who was just as sloshed as Schlegel. THAT was a genuine LOL. You are incorrigible. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, pogi said: No one is "imposing" their wife on others The analogy of the wife has its limits here because a wife (unlike truth) is not something that you want to share with the rest of the world. So, I will replace "wife" with "seeds". As a church, we are not imposing our seeds upon the world. We are simply saying, "hey look, I planted these seeds and they bore delicious fruit. I have faith that if you plant these seeds , and nourish them, they will bear the same delicious fruit for you." You see, we are not imposing anything. That is a ridiculous accusation. An excellent point!
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 1 hour ago, pogi said: The seed that Alma is speaking of is the word of God. It is not limited to "duly-authorized ministers of the true church". Alma 32 makes it clear that the seed does not come by missionaries or authorized ministers alone: Brigham Young counseled us to receive the word of God, let it come from wherever it may. That counsel has been extensively repeated throughout Mormonism. Mormonism doesn't claim to have hold of every word of God, and we are counseled to go out and find it wherever it may be, in other religions, books, and sciences, etc. In other words, the church is not the source of every seed. There are numberless seeds, or truths, to be tested. It is not just one seed (the church). Again, there is not just one seed. There is the seed of Charity, the seed of humility, the seed of faith, the seed of hope, the seed of keeping the Sabbath Holy, the seed of prayer, etc. etc. They all need to be planted, nourished, and tested individually, and they will all bear fruit accordingly. As the D&C states, we receive blessings (the fruit) upon obedience to the principles upon which the blessings (fruits) are predicated. Many seeds, many fruits. Don't limit yourself to the fruits of Mormonism, there is so much to feast on outside of Mormonism that it would be a pity to miss-out on the potential for extra spiritual growth and progression in the kingdom of God. What is a "full-blown testimony"? Alma 32 makes it clear that a full-blown testimony of the seed is not the same as a perfect knowledge, and that faith is still required. The only thing that we can be certain of, according to Alma 32, is that the seed bears good fruit; but faith, in general, is still required: That is not what we are saying. What I am saying is that there are true seeds everywhere. No single man or church (even ours) has every seed or knows them perfectly. We all rely on faith. We all do the best to adhere to the light we have been given. We all have light and are being led to the fullness. Those who don't belong to our faith but nourish the seeds that they do have, and follow the spirit to the best of their ability, will equally partake in the blessings of exaltation with us. So, how could we claim that their path is not equally valid? Yes, I have faith that this is the one true church, but I don't accept that this is the one church with truth. I do have faith that all mankind require authorized baptism, etc. but no, I don't accept that there is only one path to baptism and ultimate exaltation. Yes, I never had "duly authorized" people plant any seeds for me- the spirit called to me and I responded. I would not have seen them as duly authorized at the time anyway- some kids on the street? Are you kidding?? 2
Bobbieaware Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, pogi said: The seed that Alma is speaking of is the word of God. It is not limited to "duly-authorized ministers of the true church". Alma 32 makes it clear that the seed does not come by missionaries or authorized ministers alone: Brigham Young counseled us to receive the word of God, let it come from wherever it may. That counsel has been extensively repeated throughout Mormonism. Mormonism doesn't claim to have hold of every word of God, and we are counseled to go out and find it wherever it may be, in other religions, books, and sciences, etc. In other words, the church is not the source of every seed. There are numberless seeds, or truths, to be tested. It is not just one seed (the church). Again, there is not just one seed. There is the seed of Charity, the seed of humility, the seed of faith, the seed of hope, the seed of keeping the Sabbath Holy, the seed of prayer, etc. etc. They all need to be planted, nourished, and tested individually, and they will all bear fruit accordingly. As the D&C states, we receive blessings (the fruit) upon obedience to the principles upon which the blessings (fruits) are predicated. Many seeds, many fruits. Don't limit yourself to the fruits of Mormonism, there is so much to feast on outside of Mormonism that it would be a pity to miss-out on the potential for extra spiritual growth and progression in the kingdom of God. What is a "full-blown testimony"? Alma 32 makes it clear that a full-blown testimony of the seed is not the same as a perfect knowledge, and that faith is still required. The only thing that we can be certain of, according to Alma 32, is that the seed bears good fruit; but faith, in general, is still required: That is not what we are saying. What I am saying is that there are true seeds everywhere. No single man or church (even ours) has every seed or knows them perfectly. We all rely on faith. We all do the best to adhere to the light we have been given. We all have light and are being led to the fullness. Those who don't belong to our faith but nourish the seeds that they do have, and follow the spirit to the best of their ability, will equally partake in the blessings of exaltation with us. So, how could we claim that their path is not equally valid? Yes, I have faith that this is the one true church, but I don't accept that this is the one church with truth. I do have faith that all mankind require authorized baptism, etc. but no, I don't accept that there is only one path to baptism and ultimate exaltation. Just to let you know, your points would hold much more weigh with me if you would take some time to find and post specific verses of scripture that corroborate your ideas. 30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. (D&C 138) In connection with the above verse of scripture, I must say I’m somewhat taken aback by what appears to be an almost mocking tone exhibited by you when you responded to my point that Alma was an authorized minister of the true Church of Jesus Christ and that by virtue of his ordination he had the power and authority to preach the true gospel to the Zoramites, teach them in detail how to plant and nurture the seed of testimony (personal revelation) in their hearts, and administer the saving ordinances of the true gospel in their behalf.. As you well know, the fundamental LDS principle of authorized ministers necessarily being the only individuals authorized by God to preach the true gospel and administer it’s saving ordinances to others is Mormonism 101. There is no knowledgeable Latter-day Saint who is unaware of the fact that everyone who has ever lived will have to be taught, baptized and confirmed, either in the flesh or by means of a proxy, by someone who holds the true priesthood authority before they can become members of the Lord’s true Church. So why you appear to exhibit a degree of sarcasm on this critically important gospel principle seems odd. Perhaps I’m reading you incorrectly? The following verse from Alma 32 is the one I was thinking of when I used the expression “full-blown testimony” (a mature testimony). 41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.(3 Nephi 26) Perhaps I should have used the expression “fully-mature” testimony? As a longtime Latter-day Saint, I’m well aware of the fact that the members of the Church have long been encouragement to embrace truth wherever it can be found. I’m also keenly aware that the LDS Church doesn’t have an absolute monopoly on truth and that other Churches have enough truth to make positive spiritual impacts on their members. But because It appears I’m less of a universalist than you are you’ll have to forgive me if I personally conclude a religion that denies the existence of God and asserts men can save themselves without the need for an atoning Savior appears comport more with the “wide gate” and “broad way” philosophies gravely warned of by the Savior, and has far less to do with the good seed of personal revelation described by the Christian prophet and Melchizedek Priesthood authority named Alma.. 33 And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he said unto his disciples: Enter ye in at the strait gate; for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein, until the night cometh, wherein no man can work. (3 Nephi 26) I ask the following question sincerely: Do you believe the Zoramite religion of the Rameumpton Tower had the inherent spiritual light and power needed to inspire one of its adherents to plant the good seed of the word of in his heart? Edited January 18, 2018 by Bobbieaware
Bobbieaware Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Just to let you know, your points would hold much more weigh with me if you would take some time to find and post specific verses of scripture that corroborate your ideas. 30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. (D&C 138) In connection with the above verse of scripture, I must say I’m somewhat taken aback by what appears to be an almost mocking tone exhibited by you when you responded to my point that Alma was an authorized minister of the true Church of Jesus Christ, and that by virtue of his ordination he had the power and authority to preach the true gospel to the Zoramites, teach them in detail how to plant and nurture the seed of testimony (personal revelation) in their hearts, and administer the saving ordinances of the true gospel in their behalf.. As you well know, the fundamental LDS principle of authorized ministers necessarily being the only individuals authorized by God to preach the true gospel and administer it’s saving ordinances to others is Mormonism 101. There is no knowledgeable Latter-day Saint who is unaware of the fact that everyone who has ever lived will have to be taught, baptized and confirmed, either in the flesh or by means of a proxy, by someone who holds the true priesthood authority before they can become members of the Lord’s true Church. So why you appear to exhibit a degree of sarcasm on this critically important gospel principle seems odd. Perhaps I’m reading you incorrectly? The following verse from Alma 32 is the one I was thinking of when I used the expression “full-blown testimony” (a mature testimony). 41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.(3 Nephi 26) Perhaps I should have used the expression “fully-mature” testimony? As a longtime Latter-day Saint, I’m well aware of the fact that the members of the Church have long been encouragement to embrace truth wherever it can be found. I’m also keenly aware that the LDS Church doesn’t have an absolute monopoly on truth and that other Churches have enough truth to make positive spiritual impacts on their members. But because It appears I’m less of a universalist than you are you’ll have to forgive me if I personally conclude a religion that denies the existence of God and asserts men can save themselves without the need for an atoning Savior appears comport more with the “wide gate” and “broad way” philosophies gravely warned of by the Savior, and has far less to do with the good seed of personal revelation described by the Christian prophet and Melchizedek Priesthood authority named Alma.. 33 And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he said unto his disciples: Enter ye in at the strait gate; for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein, until the night cometh, wherein no man can work. (3 Nephi 26) I ask the following question sincerely: Do you believe the Zoramite religion of the Rameumpton Tower had the inherent spiritual light and power needed to inspire one of its adherents to plant the good seed of the word of in his heart?
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Just to let you know, your points would hold much more weigh with me if you would take some time to find and post specific verses of scripture that corroborate your ideas. And how would you possibly know those scriptures were true? The Spirit is primary. That's the same problem with authority. Why do you give the scriptures authority over your life? Because some other authority told you to? I know you and I know that is not your answer, but the point is, the spirit can show you what is true regardless of whether it has "authority" because it is the spirit that MAKES it "authoritative" 3
pogi Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Just to let you know, your points would hold much more weigh with me if you would take some time to find and post specific verses of scripture that corroborate your ideas. Which ideas are you referring to specifically? Because I thought I did reference scripture and prophets. 5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: 30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. (D&C 138) Great scripture. It serves to further my point that even the "Godless" Buddhists who adhere to the light they have been given in this life, are on a very valid path to exaltation. Temple work accentuates my point. Or, is temple work for the Buddhists and Zoramites a complete waste of time (that will save us from having to do a LOT of temple work!)? 5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: In connection with the above verse of scripture, I must say I’m somewhat taken aback by what appears to be an almost mocking tone exhibited by you when you responded to my point that Alma was an authorized minister of the true Church of Jesus Christ and that by virtue of his ordination he had the power and authority to preach the true gospel to the Zoramites, teach them in detail how to plant and nurture the seed of testimony (personal revelation) in their hearts, and administer the saving ordinances of the true gospel in their behalf.. As you well know, the fundamental LDS principle of authorized ministers necessarily being the only individuals authorized by God to preach the true gospel and administer it’s saving ordinances to others is Mormonism 101. There is no knowledgeable Latter-day Saint who is unaware of the fact that everyone who has ever lived will have to be taught, baptized and confirmed, either in the flesh or by means of a proxy, by someone who holds the true priesthood authority before they can become members of the Lord’s true Church. So why you appear to exhibit a degree of sarcasm on this critically important gospel principle seems odd. Perhaps I’m reading you incorrectly? Yes, you are misreading me. I am not mocking or being sarcastic at all (except for the last sentence in this post). I am fully on board with the idea of authorized ministers of the true Church preaching the gospel of faith, repentance, and baptism by immersion, etc. My point is not that authority is not necessary to enter the gates of baptism. My point is simply that the paths to that gate are as varied as are the peoples of this earth. In other words, it doesn't matter what culture, country, religion, or lack of religion that you happened to be born into - a good heart (good soil) will always find the good seed, wether in this life or the next (as your scripture above points out well). Every person born to this earth will be exposed to light and truth in this life in various spheres and forms, with differing perspectives and ideas about that light due to cultural and traditional influences. By the grace and guiding hand of God, those who adhere to that light as best as they understand, will be led to eventually converge at the same gate. I am not dismissing your points, I am simply looking at it from the big picture. 5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: The following verse from Alma 32 is the one I was thinking of when I used the expression “full-blown testimony” (a mature testimony). 41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.(3 Nephi 26) Perhaps I should have used the expression “fully-mature” testimony? I interpret that differently than you do. Our testimony will not be "fully-mature" until we taste of eternal life and know as God knows. This scripture says it shall be a tree "springing up unto eternal life". It is progressive and pre-mature in mortality, and will always require faith unto perfection. 5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: I ask the following question sincerely: Do you believe the Zoramite religion of the Rameumpton Tower had the inherent spiritual light and power needed to inspire one of its adherents to plant the good seed of the word of in his heart? Let me ask you a sincere question in return: Do you believe in the principle of predestination? Because that is where we ultimately end up if I am to assume that the correct answer to your question is “no”. In other words, do you believe that all of those innocent children who happened to be born unto Zoramite parents and raised in the religion of their parents, are predestined to an eternal existence outside of exaltation, because it is impossible for them to be inspired to plant the good seed because of their faith? They have no hope? Do you believe that a Zoramite, or any member of any faith, has no hope of conversion in this life or the next? I don't accept the doctrines of predestination, so I can't accept the implications in your question. It seems to me that God is more merciful and understanding. He understands that some will be born into faiths that have more truth and light, while others will be born where there is little. It doesn't matter to Him where they are born, the only thing that matters to Him is what they do with the light (great or small) they do have. It is spelled out in the parable of the talents. Mormonism 101. Edited January 18, 2018 by pogi 2
Brother Bear Posted January 28, 2018 Posted January 28, 2018 (edited) It’s seems Elder Christofferson weighed in on the topic in a recent address to CES employees. Perhaps he’s been lurking in this thread...or is one of you posters...but which one could it be.... https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695405/Seek-teach-and-live-by-truth-Elder-D-Todd-Christofferson-declares.html The article specifically notes: Truth, Elder Christofferson taught, is “a fixed reality,” that governs the present sphere, exists independent and apart, and is unaffected by preference or opinion and stands independent of any effort to control or change it. “It cannot be lobbied or influenced in any way,” he said. But in much of the world, relativist thinking has become a dominant philosophy. “By relativism I mean the view that ethical or moral truths are relative, that they depend on the attitudes and feelings of those who hold them, and that no one can judge the validity of someone else’s ‘truth,’” he said. “You hear a lot of talk these days about ‘my truth’ and ‘his truth’ or ‘her truth.’” But moral relativism doesn’t work if there is to be order and justice in society, the leader taught. “Can murder be wrong for most but right for some?” he asked. “Is a thief entitled to keep what he steals and continue stealing because he believes robbery is right for him, especially since he grew up in underprivileged circumstances? Or, taking note of something very much in the news today, is a man entitled to sexually harass a woman because he finds it fulfilling and consistent with his personal sense of right and wrong?” Recognizing there are some things that are generally accepted as wrong and have laws against them — murder, rape, theft and other actions that injure people or interfere with their legitimate pursuit of happiness — Elder Christofferson said it is beyond those “acknowledged human rights” that moral relativism applies, where a person may define for himself or herself what is right or wrong. “But this line of reasoning makes the point that there are in fact moral absolutes, whether you call them universal human rights or something else,” he said. “The only debate, really, is what they are and how far they extend. What we refer to as moral relativism is actually an ongoing debate about tolerance: What actions and differences should be tolerated in society and in human relations?” ——— Video of the full address is available on-demand here: https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/evening-with-a-general-authority/2018/01?lang=eng If you have 40 minutes its worth a listen. Edited January 28, 2018 by Brother Bear
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) On 1/28/2018 at 2:24 PM, Brother Bear said: It’s seems Elder Christofferson weighed in on the topic in a recent address to CES employees. Perhaps he’s been lurking in this thread...or is one of you posters...but which one could it be.... https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695405/Seek-teach-and-live-by-truth-Elder-D-Todd-Christofferson-declares.html The article specifically notes: Truth, Elder Christofferson taught, is “a fixed reality,” that governs the present sphere, exists independent and apart, and is unaffected by preference or opinion and stands independent of any effort to control or change it. “It cannot be lobbied or influenced in any way,” he said. But in much of the world, relativist thinking has become a dominant philosophy. “By relativism I mean the view that ethical or moral truths are relative, that they depend on the attitudes and feelings of those who hold them, and that no one can judge the validity of someone else’s ‘truth,’” he said. “You hear a lot of talk these days about ‘my truth’ and ‘his truth’ or ‘her truth.’” But moral relativism doesn’t work if there is to be order and justice in society, the leader taught. “Can murder be wrong for most but right for some?” he asked. “Is a thief entitled to keep what he steals and continue stealing because he believes robbery is right for him, especially since he grew up in underprivileged circumstances? Or, taking note of something very much in the news today, is a man entitled to sexually harass a woman because he finds it fulfilling and consistent with his personal sense of right and wrong?” Recognizing there are some things that are generally accepted as wrong and have laws against them — murder, rape, theft and other actions that injure people or interfere with their legitimate pursuit of happiness — Elder Christofferson said it is beyond those “acknowledged human rights” that moral relativism applies, where a person may define for himself or herself what is right or wrong. “But this line of reasoning makes the point that there are in fact moral absolutes, whether you call them universal human rights or something else,” he said. “The only debate, really, is what they are and how far they extend. What we refer to as moral relativism is actually an ongoing debate about tolerance: What actions and differences should be tolerated in society and in human relations?” ——— Video of the full address is available on-demand here: https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/evening-with-a-general-authority/2018/01?lang=eng If you have 40 minutes its worth a listen. So how are we to know if he is right or wrong? Perhaps if Alma is right, because such beliefs bear good fruit? Where is this view expressed in latter day revelation with changing doctrines? Polygamy right or wrong? Blacks in our out of the priesthood? Just asking.... how does that work when everyone is to ask God if the church is true? What if they get a different answer? Is the prophet infallible despite what others have said? These are complex questions. Clearly there ARE principles like "murder is wrong" which are always true but defining the terms present problems. Joseph took a pistol to the jail. I am just looking for where this objectivity resides if one is to believe in it, and how we can know which principle is true. The only answer the church presents is "the spirit" but of course that is up to each individual and his/her conscience. How does one find out what the "fixed reality" IS by using Alma 32 or Moroni 10, when there is no objective standard of what the "fixed reality" is, and when prophets have made mistakes? If they don't always get it right, who can and how would we know who can? I would just like to be instructed in that because I genuinely don't get it. I am open to someone explaining it if that is possible. Edited January 30, 2018 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) "Joseph took a pistol to the jail." Nitpicking here, he used a gun in the jail, but it was smuggled into him, he didn't take it. Not a significant difference, imo. I like tidy sequences of history though. "These were the guns that were smuggled into the Carthage Jail while Joseph Smith, Hyrum and their friends awaited their fate. On the morning of June 27, 1844, Cyrus Wheelock visited the jail. The morning being a little rainy, favoured his wearing an overcoat, in the side pocket of which he was enabled to carry a six-shooter, and he passed the guard unmolested. During his visit in the prison he slipped the revolver into Joseph’s pocket. Joseph examined it, and asked Wheelock if he had not better retain it for his own protection. This was a providential circumstance, as most other persons had been very rigidly searched. Joseph then handed the single barrel pistol, which had been given him by John S. Fullmer, to his brother Hyrum, and said, “You may have use for this.” Brother Hyrum observed, “I hate to use such things, or to see them used.” “So do I,” said Joseph, “but we may have to, to defend ourselves;” upon this Hyrum took the pistol." https://ldsmag.com/article-1-13518/ Edited January 30, 2018 by Calm
Brother Bear Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: So how are we to know if he is right or wrong? Perhaps if Alma is right, because such beliefs bear good fruit? Where is this view expressed in latter day revelation with changing doctrines? Polygamy right or wrong? Blacks in our out of the priesthood? Just asking.... how does that work when everyone is to ask God if the church is true? What if they get a different answer? Is the prophet infallible despite what others have said? These are complex questions. Clearly there ARE principles like "murder is wrong" which are always true but defining the terms present problems. Joseph took a pistol to the jail. I am just looking for where this objectivity resides if one is to believe in it, and how we can know which principle is true. The only answer the church presents is "the spirit" but of course that is up to each individual and his/her conscience. How does one find out what the "fixed reality" IS by using Alma 32 or Moroni 10, when there is no objective standard of what the "fixed reality" is, and when prophets have made mistakes? If they don't always get it right, who can and how would we know who can? I would just like to be instructed in that because I genuinely don't get it. I am open to someone explaining it if that is possible. I’d love to know as well, honestly. As I’ve stated on this thread, if objective, immutable truth is by definition outside human bias, how could we ever know it? If it’s what’s going on outside our minds, how could we even know our proximity to it? The idea of objective truth is by definition useless to us. So why do we obsess about it, talk about it as if it’s something we can obtain, and fool ourselves, quite frankly, in to thinking we know it? It is so odd that as a church we feel a need to be so certain about things we can’t know. Why not just focus on the fruits of Gospel living? Therein lie its power and worth that can be comprehended and enjoyed through direct experience. Edited January 30, 2018 by Brother Bear 1
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 3 hours ago, Brother Bear said: I’d love to know as well, honestly. As I’ve stated on this thread, if objective, immutable truth is by definition outside human bias, how could we ever know it? If it’s what’s going on outside our minds, how could we even know our proximity to it? The idea of objective truth is by definition useless to us. So why do we obsess about it, talk about it as if it’s something we can obtain, and fool ourselves, quite frankly, in to thinking we know it? It is so odd that as a church we feel a need to be so certain about things we can’t know. Why not just focus on the fruits of Gospel living? Therein lie its power and worth that can be comprehended and enjoyed through direct experience. BING BING BING give this man the cigar! (candy of course! ) We have a winner! There may be "objective truth" but KNOWING what it is is the issue! In Mormonese, "we come to earth to live by faith" so by definition we cannot know what IS "objectively true" What you just espoused is called "Pragmatism" and is a genuine philosophical position and is how I discovered the church while looking for "truth". Straight Alma 32- by their fruits will you know them. And the fact of the matter is that people do get different "answers" when they take the Moroni challenge- or at least they SAY the do and we have no objective basis by which to judge what they say. We "know we are right" when we follow the spirit but have no objective basis for telling others that WE have the objective truth even if that ultimately turns out to be "true". So I appreciate Elder C's statements here but they do not work well in communicating to non-members. I am sure it has been difficult for him during his life having a brother who is openly homosexual, so on the other hand he is the ideal person to deal with these issues and the conflict they cause in the minds of members since he must be dealing with these issues himself and has been for a lifetime.
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 9 hours ago, Calm said: "Joseph took a pistol to the jail." Nitpicking here, he used a gun in the jail, but it was smuggled into him, he didn't take it. Not a significant difference, imo. I like tidy sequences of history though. "These were the guns that were smuggled into the Carthage Jail while Joseph Smith, Hyrum and their friends awaited their fate. On the morning of June 27, 1844, Cyrus Wheelock visited the jail. The morning being a little rainy, favoured his wearing an overcoat, in the side pocket of which he was enabled to carry a six-shooter, and he passed the guard unmolested. During his visit in the prison he slipped the revolver into Joseph’s pocket. Joseph examined it, and asked Wheelock if he had not better retain it for his own protection. This was a providential circumstance, as most other persons had been very rigidly searched. Joseph then handed the single barrel pistol, which had been given him by John S. Fullmer, to his brother Hyrum, and said, “You may have use for this.” Brother Hyrum observed, “I hate to use such things, or to see them used.” “So do I,” said Joseph, “but we may have to, to defend ourselves;” upon this Hyrum took the pistol." https://ldsmag.com/article-1-13518/ What is your point? That self defense is prohibited by the commandments? That is the issue here. It is also useful to use the quote function so others know to whom you are responding. Like perhaps the person to whom you are responding- it is useful to know someone is quoting you The point is that sometimes killing someone is justified, and there are exceptions to every rule. I am surprised you would not see that.
Calm Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: What is your point? That self defense is prohibited by the commandments? That is the issue here. It is also useful to use the quote function so others know to whom you are responding. Like perhaps the person to whom you are responding- it is useful to know someone is quoting you The point is that sometimes killing someone is justified, and there are exceptions to every rule. I am surprised you would not see that. No, my only point was what I stated...just wanted to keep the sequence of history straight. Don't think it makes any significant difference in terms of morality, theology, or whatever...but I bet Wheelock and Fuller's descendants care a bit, it is always fun to see an ancestor's name involved in history, even in minor parts. I like to know detailsd as it fleshes out the pictures I create in my thoughts for historical events. Wasn't making any argument, just telling the story. Edited January 30, 2018 by Calm
Recommended Posts