My New Mormonism

[Meerkat]

On 2/17/2018 at 1:16 PM, 3DOP said:

...I must profoundly object to your apparent beliefs...

You said a mouthful there, 3DOP.  I don't object to you proselytizing.  But here, rather than your stated purpose of obtaining wisdom and understanding, your efforts appear to persuade by enlisting or referring to others who question our faith.  Maybe that's not your intent, in fairness.  It's just so easy to pick out flaws and attribute malice intents in anyone or any religion.  If I am doing that with you, I apologize.  I have a lot of respect for the Catholic religion and the much good they do in the world.  It wouldn't occur to me to go back and address the many changes that have happened as your religion has evolved over the years, or things that could cause people to take offense or object to your beliefs.  I don't object to your beliefs.  They are yours to embrace. 

My experience with Mormons is that we don't try to weaken other people's faith in their own religion.  We don't tear down other religions.  We build bridges to them.  I've seen the Catholics do this also, which I appreciate.  Id like to see more of it.

We say "Try an experiment.  Pray.  Don't take our word for it.  Ask God.  He will answer you.  Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.  He spoke through prophets then.  He speaks through prophets now, and He will speak to anyone personally through the Holy Ghost."  

When John said "...Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us."

Jesus responded "Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.  For he that is not against us is on our part.  For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."  Mark 9:38-41.

If you really want to understand why we believe what we do, read the Book of Mormon.  While you are reading it, sincerely pray to know if it is true.  When the answer comes, you will understand why we can believe, regardless of our detractors.  If the Book of Mormon is true, then young Joseph Smith truly was a prophet.  You will see things as we do.  That's the only way I am aware of that will work-- going right to the Source.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Meerkat

[Meerkat]

 

11 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

23 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

To taste and bear testimony of the spiritual value contained in mormonism while holding the belief that Joseph Smith may have been sexually deviant, that historicity is irrelevant, or that leaders are quite capable of being racist is in no way blasphemous, contradictory, spiritually weak, or anti Mormon. Critics and defenders are engaged in this perpetual, stupid debate over Joseph Smith’s sex life, faces in hats, DNA, etc that is as useful a debate to one’s spirituality as two children arguing whether Batman or Ironman is the better superhero. 

If the church or gospel doesn’t work for a person that’s fine. If some one wants to defend or criticize JS’s behavior, go right ahead. But to argue as if these things are critical to the spiritual value of Mormonism is logically stupid. 

Well put, Brother Bear.   Thank you.  My view is that God has always worked through fallible people.  Noah, Jonah, King David, Paul, Alma the younger, Joseph Smith Jr., Actually, all human beings are flawed.  Yet inasmuch as they strengthen our faith in Christ and other aspects of our faith, the very real and internal evidence for our personal faith grows. 

It may be similar for Catholics and people of other faiths.  They have evidence that gives them reasons for their personal faith.  I see much good, and would lock arms with many or most of them.  Some reasons for my faith have to do with personal and continuous revelation, authority and the fruits of this religion.  I'm what you would call a "true believer."  God answered my prayers in a profoundly personal way that I can't and have no desire to deny.  I experience it's fruits continually.  

 

[MiserereNobis]

I'd like to chime in here. I think there may be some misunderstanding of what Rory is trying to say. I want to be clear that this isn't one Catholic coming to the defense of another, but maybe a non-Mormon outsider view on this thread could be helpful.

I didn't read Rory as necessarily attacking Mormonism. I read him as pointing out that from his perspective and experience online, he sees a change in the ways Mormons are dealing with anti-Mormon claims. I think the reason he points out his long online experience with this LDS board is to say that his experiences are credible. He's been here a long time so he has the personal experience of seeing the changes.

The change he seems to see is that previously Mormon apologetics would say that anti-Mormons got it wrong. That Brigham Young wasn't racist. That Joseph Smith didn't have polygamous relationships that appear to be improper or scandalous. Etc. But now he sees that the LDS way of dealing with these is changing -- they are accepted instead of refuted. He uses that video from the other thread as evidence of this acceptance. He brings up other changes he has seen, such as less of a focus on the actual historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I think the reason he says maybe this is just an internet thing is because his experience of this change is limited to his experience of LDS internet boards and apologetics here.

I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy so I understand where Mark is coming from. I don't really engage Mark on philosophy here because that's not my intent here, though we do philosophically tease each other from time to time. Often, it appears to me that Mark is trying to convince his fellow Mormons that Mormonism is actually post-modern and pragmatic, but that they just don't know it. From my own internet and in-person experience, I think Mormons would have a difficult time with some post-modern ideas, such as relativity of truth and giving up the correspondence theory, but maybe that's just because they haven't been trained philosophically. I really don't know since I'm not Mormon. So when Rory says that an LDS apostle probably wouldn't have the same views as Mark on all of this stuff, perhaps that's what he means. I've never really heard anyone explain Mormonism like Mark does, so perhaps that's part of it, too. He does have an interesting take that is unique.

I know I'm talking for both Rory and Mark here (sorry, guys, so please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you), but this is the way I am understanding this thread. I don't think the responses to Rory have actually addressed his issues, which is why I am chiming in. I don't see him as attacking or proselytizing, but instead as being really confused to a change in things in the internet-based Mormon world and trying to explain his experience and understand what is going on.

 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'd like to chime in here. I think there may be some misunderstanding of what Rory is trying to say. I want to be clear that this isn't one Catholic coming to the defense of another, but maybe a non-Mormon outsider view on this thread could be helpful.

I didn't read Rory as necessarily attacking Mormonism. I read him as pointing out that from his perspective and experience online, he sees a change in the ways Mormons are dealing with anti-Mormon claims. I think the reason he points out his long online experience with this LDS board is to say that his experiences are credible. He's been here a long time so he has the personal experience of seeing the changes.

The change he seems to see is that previously Mormon apologetics would say that anti-Mormons got it wrong. That Brigham Young wasn't racist. That Joseph Smith didn't have polygamous relationships that appear to be improper or scandalous. Etc. But now he sees that the LDS way of dealing with these is changing -- they are accepted instead of refuted. He uses that video from the other thread as evidence of this acceptance. He brings up other changes he has seen, such as less of a focus on the actual historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I think the reason he says maybe this is just an internet thing is because his experience of this change is limited to his experience of LDS internet boards and apologetics here.

I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy so I understand where Mark is coming from. I don't really engage Mark on philosophy here because that's not my intent here, though we do philosophically tease each other from time to time. Often, it appears to me that Mark is trying to convince his fellow Mormons that Mormonism is actually post-modern and pragmatic, but that they just don't know it. From my own internet and in-person experience, I think Mormons would have a difficult time with some post-modern ideas, such as relativity of truth and giving up the correspondence theory, but maybe that's just because they haven't been trained philosophically. I really don't know since I'm not Mormon. So when Rory says that an LDS apostle probably wouldn't have the same views as Mark on all of this stuff, perhaps that's what he means. I've never really heard anyone explain Mormonism like Mark does, so perhaps that's part of it, too. He does have an interesting take that is unique.

I know I'm talking for both Rory and Mark here (sorry, guys, so please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you), but this is the way I am understanding this thread. I don't think the responses to Rory have actually addressed his issues, which is why I am chiming in. I don't see him as attacking or proselytizing, but instead as being really confused to a change in things in the internet-based Mormon world and trying to explain his experience and understand what is going on.

 

I was curious if Rory doesn't believe the anti-Mormon stuff to be true either, or didn't before the acceptance of it by apologists or the video in question. Rory? 

[MiserereNobis]

I also wanted to add that I'm not taking a position on any of this stuff -- I'm just trying to point out how I understand this thread.

Also, Rory and I are the longest currently active posting Catholics here, so you gotta know we like you guys

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'd like to chime in here. I think there may be some misunderstanding of what Rory is trying to say. I want to be clear that this isn't one Catholic coming to the defense of another, but maybe a non-Mormon outsider view on this thread could be helpful.

I didn't read Rory as necessarily attacking Mormonism. I read him as pointing out that from his perspective and experience online, he sees a change in the ways Mormons are dealing with anti-Mormon claims. I think the reason he points out his long online experience with this LDS board is to say that his experiences are credible. He's been here a long time so he has the personal experience of seeing the changes.

The change he seems to see is that previously Mormon apologetics would say that anti-Mormons got it wrong. That Brigham Young wasn't racist. That Joseph Smith didn't have polygamous relationships that appear to be improper or scandalous. Etc. But now he sees that the LDS way of dealing with these is changing -- they are accepted instead of refuted. He uses that video from the other thread as evidence of this acceptance. He brings up other changes he has seen, such as less of a focus on the actual historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I think the reason he says maybe this is just an internet thing is because his experience of this change is limited to his experience of LDS internet boards and apologetics here.

I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy so I understand where Mark is coming from. I don't really engage Mark on philosophy here because that's not my intent here, though we do philosophically tease each other from time to time. Often, it appears to me that Mark is trying to convince his fellow Mormons that Mormonism is actually post-modern and pragmatic, but that they just don't know it. From my own internet and in-person experience, I think Mormons would have a difficult time with some post-modern ideas, such as relativity of truth and giving up the correspondence theory, but maybe that's just because they haven't been trained philosophically. I really don't know since I'm not Mormon. So when Rory says that an LDS apostle probably wouldn't have the same views as Mark on all of this stuff, perhaps that's what he means. I've never really heard anyone explain Mormonism like Mark does, so perhaps that's part of it, too. He does have an interesting take that is unique.

I know I'm talking for both Rory and Mark here (sorry, guys, so please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you), but this is the way I am understanding this thread. I don't think the responses to Rory have actually addressed his issues, which is why I am chiming in. I don't see him as attacking or proselytizing, but instead as being really confused to a change in things in the internet-based Mormon world and trying to explain his experience and understand what is going on.

 

Thanks and I am glad you jumped in.  It can only help!

I don't know how to address Rory's question except to say that I think he was wrong and misunderstood Mormonism. That's the only answer I can have for him.

I am not quite sure WHAT Rory is saying here really other than showing that he has only been exposed to a version of Mormonism that prevailed in the 1950's and objecting to the idea that churches CAN change and remain "true" and yet I know Catholics have that too to a degree in the notion of sensus fidei.

There is no question that some Mormon authorities have condemned both "postmodernism" and "relativism" by name but - I am sorry to put it this way- but I don't think they know what they are talking about philosophically. 

I don't see any way that religious propositions can be justified as "true" without some kind of relative truth since clearly religious statements CANNOT be justified by objective evidence, otherwise scientists would be the ones we go to to prove the existence of God

Is that one you can answer?

I have been thinking about this a bit and all I can see is conflict in the Catholic view of this and I wish someone could show me at least a consistent theory explaining a theory of truth which can accommodate the "truth" of private revelation for Catholics.

Seriously- I see it as rather distressing and were I Catholic it would bug the heck out of me.   How is this justified?

Here we have a prayer to know one's vocation:

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers-and-devotions/prayers/prayer-to-know-ones-vocation.cfm

Quote

 

Prayer To Know One's Vocation

Lord, my God and my loving Father, you have made me to know you, to love you, to serve you, and thereby to find and to fulfill my deepest longings. I know that you are in all things, and that every path can lead me to you. 

But of them all, there is one especially by which you want me to come to you. Since I will do what you want of me, I pray you, send your Holy Spirit to me: into my mind, to show me what you want of me; into my heart, to give me the determination to do it, and to do it with all my love, with all my mind, and with all of my strength right to the end. Jesus, I trust in you. Amen

 

This is totally Mormon and a prayer I could say myself!  "Every path can lead me to you"

That is exactly what I have been saying- that the Holy Sprit can lead everyone to the path which is best for them.  It is a prayer for a subjective experience "into my heart" to do God's will for me.   You cannot get more "Mormon" than that.  It is a direct experience from God to know God's will for oneself

But then we have this statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia which CONDEMNS Pragmatism precisely BECAUSE pragmatism says that truth is found IN A DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE which is NOT "inferential" and that God is a Being whose existence is not capable of direct intuitional experience"
 

Quote

 

But it is clear that if we attach any definite meaning at all to the idea of God, we must mean a Being whose existence is not capable of direct intuitional experience, except in the supernatural order, an order which, it need hardly be said, the Pragmatist does not admit. We do not need the Pragmatist to tell us that belief in God functions for good, that it brings order into our intellectual chaos, that it sustains us by confidence in the rationality of things here, and buoys us up with hope when we look towards the things that are beyond. What we need is assistance in the task of showing that that belief is founded on inferential evidence, and that the "hypothesis of God" may be proved to be a fact.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12333b.htm

Of course the writer is wrong in portraying all pragmatists as denying the "supernatural" since the distinction is clearly possible to explain away- in that TV in ancient times would be considered "supernatural" simply because it would have relied on principles not then known to be "natural".  It is quibbling over semantics as to what is "natural" or "supernatural".

But then WHAT IS the "inferential evidence" which proves God to be a "fact"?

How could a Catholic pray for evidence in his heart to know his vocation while NOT be seeking "direct intuitional experience"??

What am I confusing here?  Or is the author of the article confused?  Do Catholics think that private revelation can be "true"?  If so then on what theory of truth?

Edited February 19, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Meerkat]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I know I'm talking for both Rory and Mark here (sorry, guys, so please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you), but this is the way I am understanding this thread. I don't think the responses to Rory have actually addressed his issues, which is why I am chiming in. I don't see him as attacking or proselytizing, but instead as being really confused to a change in things in the internet-based Mormon world and trying to explain his experience and understand what is going on.

I can see that's a fair statement. And thanks for your other comments.  They helped me understand your and Rory's view a little better.  I didn't care for his half in jest comment  "...I profoundly object to your apparent beliefs..."  However, the word "apparent" is an invitation to clarify.  The internet has been a game changer for many things that impact the fabric of our families and communities.  Sensational media is interesting to many of us.  National Enquirer headlines sell a lot of magazines.  I don't believe it is the converted faithful who are impacted by salacious stories and facts.  My opinion is that for many (not all,) they were either raised in the Church and didn't acquire a life changing event in their lives, or others who may not have embraced the faith to the point of a life transforming testimony.  Having read much anti-Mormon literature early in my church membership, much of it is truly unsettling.  Had I not received what I believe was communication from God in a powerful way, I would have had a hard time considering that a church started by such flawed individuals, who lived polygamy, who withheld the Priesthood from blacks, with members being driven from pillar to post, could be God's kingdom on earth.  It would have been hard to get past that.  I did get past the unsettling part through prayer and things that faithful active members do, such as reading the scriptures, praying, attending Church, attempting to live a virtuous life, etc.  But it was hard even for me, a true believer.  Questions about the priesthood didn't bother me so much because I had black Mormon friends who had strong testimonies that the day would come when their situation would be righted, which it was.  Although the policy was in error, I believed it was logical that it was God's priesthood and he could give it to whomever he wanted, as He did in the beginning-- first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles.  We can discuss policy and errors of judgment, history, etc. until we are blue in the face.  Those who are truly converted have received an answer from God that is undeniable, and it is an answer that carries us beyond the imperfections of this mortal sphere.  You may have the same strong feelings about the Catholic faith.  I don't know.  If I were a Catholic, I could look to Catholic Community Services, their many hospital systems, their charity for the homeless people throughout the world, how they brought civilization into much of the world, Knights of Columbus, etc.  There are many reasons a person would want to belong to such an organization.  Without my conversion experience, I could easily see belonging to the Catholic Church.  If I were raised as a Catholic, not converted, but a member of the Catholic Church, I could also see how focusing on the sensational on the internet could influence me to leave the organization.  So we probably have much in common on this subject.  

Edited February 19, 2018 by Meerkat

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks and I am glad you jumped in.  It can only help!

I don't know how to address Rory's question except to say that I think he was wrong and misunderstood Mormonism. That's the only answer I can have for him.

I am not quite sure WHAT Rory is saying here really other than showing that he has only been exposed to a version of Mormonism that prevailed in the 1950's and objecting to the idea that churches CAN change and remain "true" and yet I know Catholics have that too to a degree in the notion of sensus fidei.

There is no question that some Mormon authorities have condemned both "postmodernism" and "relativism" by name but - I am sorry to put it this way- but I don't think they know what they are talking about philosophically. 

I don't see any way that religious propositions can be justified as "true" without some kind of relative truth since clearly religious statements CANNOT be justified by objective evidence, otherwise scientists would be the ones we go to to prove the existence of God

Is that one you can answer?

I have been thinking about this a bit and all I can see is conflict in the Catholic view of this and I wish someone could show me at least a consistent theory explaining a theory of truth which can accommodate the "truth" of private revelation for Catholics.

Seriously- I see it as rather distressing and were I Catholic it would bug the heck out of me.   How is this justified?

Here we have a prayer to know one's vocation:

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers-and-devotions/prayers/prayer-to-know-ones-vocation.cfm

This is totally Mormon and a prayer I could say myself!  "Every path can lead me to you"

That is exactly what I have been saying- that the Holy Sprit can lead everyone to the path which is best for them.  It is a prayer for a subjective experience "into my heart" to do God's will for me.   You cannot get more "Mormon" than that.  It is a direct experience from God to know God's will for oneself

But then we have this statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia which CONDEMNS Pragmatism precisely BECAUSE pragmatism says that truth is found IN A DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE which is NOT "inferential" and that God is a Being whose existence is not capable of direct intuitional experience"
 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12333b.htm

Of course the writer is wrong in portraying all pragmatists as denying the "supernatural" since the distinction is clearly possible to explain away- in that TV in ancient times would be considered "supernatural" simply because it would have relied on principles not then known to be "natural".  It is quibbling over semantics as to what is "natural" or "supernatural".

But then WHAT IS the "inferential evidence" which proves God to be a "fact"?

How could a Catholic pray for evidence in his heart to know his vocation while NOT be seeking "direct intuitional experience"??

What am I confusing here?  Or is the author of the article confused?  Do Catholics think that private revelation can be "true"?  If so then on what theory of truth?

And now to make matters even worse, I find this on New Advent, to which I am adding bolding

Quote

 

 To inquire what truth is, is one question; to ask how we know that we have judged truly, quite another. Indeed, the possibility of answering the second is supposed by the mere fact that the first is put. To be able to define truth, we must first possess it and know that we possess it, i.e. must be able to distinguish it from error. We cannot define that which we cannot distinguish and to some extent isolate. The Scholastic theory supposes, therefore, that truth has already been distinguished from error, and proceeds to examine truth with a view to discovering in what precisely it consists. This standpoint is epistemological, not criteriological. When he says that truth is correspondence, he is stating what truth is, not by what sign or mark it can be distinguished from error. By the old Scholastics the question of the criteria of truth was scarcely touched. They discussed the criteria of valid reasoning in their treatises on logic, but for the rest they left the discussion of particular criteria to the methodology of particular sciences. And rightly so, for there is really no criterion of universal application. The distinction of truth and error is at bottom intuitional. We cannot go on making criteria ad infinitum. Somewhere we must come to what is ultimate, either first principles or facts.

This is precisely what the Scholastic theory of truth affirms. In deference to the modern demand for an infallible and universal criterion of truth, not a few Scholastic writers of late have suggested objective evidence. Objective evidence, however, is nothing more than the manifestation of the object itself, directly or indirectly, to the mind, and hence is not strictly a criterion of truth, but its foundation. As Père Geny puts it in his pamphlet discussing "Une nouvelle théorie de la connaissance", to state that evidence is the ultimate criterion of truth is equivalent to stating that knowledge properly so called has no need of a criterion, since it is absurd to suppose a knowledge which does not know what it knows.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm

So God is a God is a Being whose existence is not capable of direct intuitional experience"  BUT

The distinction of truth and error is at bottom intuitional.  We cannot go on making criteria ad infinitum. Somewhere we must come to what is ultimate, either first principles or facts.

BUT then how do we know the first principle is true???  By intuition!!!  But we cannot base truth on intuition.

Is there a Catholic theologian in the house???   Seriously if anyone knows someone who can clear this up-  please get them over here.

It cannot be really as bad as I am making it- CAN IT?

OK I am going to stop

I don't want this to become an anti-Catholic piece and honestly perhaps there is someone on the Catholic board who can enlighten us.  Obviously I must be getting something wrong here??

This is ultimately why I embraced Pragmatism because no other theory "works"   PLEASE show me where I am wrong?!
 

[mfbukowski]

One more note

On my view ultimately philosophy and all this talk is just talk.

Quite honestly were I Catholic none of this would be of any importance because I know it is just the philosophies of men and a lot of talk

Just as I do now I would pray and learn from God by "intuition" and go where the spirit led me- and forget about the jibber jabber which ultimately amounts to nothing but jibber jabber.

[3DOP]

On 2/17/2018 at 4:11 PM, Five Solas said:

Perhaps you're playing a deeper game than I can see, 3DOP.  But for the life of me, I can't figure out why a Catholic is scandalized by an evolution that's been going on for decades resulting in what you call, "New Mormonism."  Is it because you find it hypocritical and you're exasperated others don't share your sense of scandal? 

I know we dialogued a bit on the previous thread, but I never did grasp your motive.  Isn't it better for the whole country (U.S.) that ~ 2% of the population no longer argues African Americans are inherently inferior (due to a lack of valiancy in a pre-existence, or any other reason) and thereby unworthy of temple participation (regardless of what one thinks of LDS temples & the practices therein)? 

I was taught the Catholic Church played a large role in suppressing the practice polygamy in the Western world, and why it's considered taboo and made illegal in many places to this day.  Do you wish to see this rolled back too?  The changes you oppose actually make the world a better place (regardless of the cognitive dissonance for some LDS). 

You are part of a remarkable tradition.  More than a few Protestants have asked what was lost as well as gained in the Reformation.  But with this seeming nostalgia for "Old Mormonism" you would, like Esau, trade your birthright for a pottage.

--Erik

___________________________________

Tomorrow, remember yesterday

--The Chameleons, "Nostalgia"

I think I clarified in the thread title that I am speaking of my experience of Mormonism, which is limited to the internet. This is why I called it "My New Mormonism." I have never in all of my years here taken a position against Mormonism based on what in the past were considered "Anti-Mormon" claims. I have had my suspicions that the claims were true, but they weren't important to me. Instead, I have chosen to focus upon the so-called "Great Apostasy". But I find increasingly that there is nothing to discuss. Maybe there is a touch of "nostalgia" for the old days when both sides believed there was evidence to support their faith claims. But what I lament most is that it leaves us with nothing to talk about except philosophy, and sadly, I am not very good at it. I do not have a desire to approach Mormonism negatively. I have preferred to oppose Mormonism because the Catholic Church is true.

You wonder if I wish there was more racism? No. If testimony bearing Mormons are admitting now that the priesthood ban had nothing to do with God's providential revelation, that is their business I guess. Maybe those who already have testimonies are okay with mostly racist Apostles in their short history. Without a testimony already, that is not what I expect of a so-called Restoration from an Apostasy that never limited the priesthood according to race. But I don't have the stomach to go after them on those kinds of issues. Even if I did, and "won", I replace a testimony with nothing. It isn't going to make them become Catholic. Mormons who lose their testimonies are not ordinarily like you. Most retain their assurance that their was a Great Apostasy. I suspect Mormons still use "evidence" rather than testimony with regards to the Apostasy in the education of their young, and to prep potential converts. This would explain to me why the vast majority of disaffected Mormons become professed atheists. They lose what is of "faith", Mormonism, while retaining what is of "knowledge", the Great Apostasy.    

With regards to marriage, I thought that LDS arguments for polygamy were sound, appealing to the Old Testament and Latter-day revelation. I am nevertheless glad that it went away. I only learned from the video about these claims that Joseph Smith sent men off to the missions so he could sleep with their wives. That would seem damaging. Without a deep and public kind of repentance, such as King David had when he sent Bathsheba's husband off to war, most informed inquirers would not need to pray about whether God used such an unrepentant scoundrel. This young man seems to accept these claims and says he has a testimony. He can't last thirty years with that. Are his children going to go out on the missions explaining that to people like me? 

I am glad you are a thoughtful Protestant. We are all on journeys. I am delighted that you escaped Mormonism without running in to the arms of atheism. That is the dilemma I consider when I have discussions about religion with Mormons. Maybe sometime you can explain to me why you have retained enough Mormonism to assume there was a "Lesser Apostasy"?

Thanks for your interest.

Rory

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Mormons who lose their testimonies are not ordinarily like you. Most retain their assurance that their was a Great Apostasy. I suspect Mormons still use "evidence" rather than testimony with regards to the Apostasy in the education of their young, and to prep potential converts. This would explain to me why the vast majority of disaffected Mormons become professed atheists. They lose what is of "faith", Mormonism, while retaining what is of "knowledge", the Great Apostasy.    

As someone who doesn't attend the mormon church anymore, I didn't become agnostic due to still believing in a great apostasy.  I looked at the bible and saw its contradictions, how no actual words of jesus were preserved, and how religion can be better explained as a sociological phenomenon originating as a mechanism to exert group control.  This was what really turned me against any organized religion.  Nevertheless, I still grapple with what place religion should have in society even if it is myth in my opinion.  Most of my family is still active in mormonism and my ex-wife is christian.  So, I still have an interest in these issues due to family.  Every time I try to leave they pull me back in (to quote Al Pacino in Godfather III)

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I think I clarified in the thread title that I am speaking of my experience of Mormonism, which is limited to the internet. This is why I called it "My New Mormonism." I have never in all of my years here taken a position against Mormonism based on what in the past were considered "Anti-Mormon" claims. I have had my suspicions that the claims were true, but they weren't important to me. Instead, I have chosen to focus upon the so-called "Great Apostasy". But I find increasingly that there is nothing to discuss. Maybe there is a touch of "nostalgia" for the old days when both sides believed there was evidence to support their faith claims. But what I lament most is that it leaves us with nothing to talk about except philosophy, and sadly, I am not very good at it. I do not have a desire to approach Mormonism negatively. I have preferred to oppose Mormonism because the Catholic Church is true.

You wonder if I wish there was more racism? No. If testimony bearing Mormons are admitting now that the priesthood ban had nothing to do with God's providential revelation, that is their business I guess. Maybe those who already have testimonies are okay with mostly racist Apostles in their short history. Without a testimony already, that is not what I expect of a so-called Restoration from an Apostasy that never limited the priesthood according to race. But I don't have the stomach to go after them on those kinds of issues. Even if I did, and "won", I replace a testimony with nothing. It isn't going to make them become Catholic. Mormons who lose their testimonies are not ordinarily like you. Most retain their assurance that their was a Great Apostasy. I suspect Mormons still use "evidence" rather than testimony with regards to the Apostasy in the education of their young, and to prep potential converts. This would explain to me why the vast majority of disaffected Mormons become professed atheists. They lose what is of "faith", Mormonism, while retaining what is of "knowledge", the Great Apostasy.    

With regards to marriage, I thought that LDS arguments for polygamy were sound, appealing to the Old Testament and Latter-day revelation. I am nevertheless glad that it went away. I only learned from the video about these claims that Joseph Smith sent men off to the missions so he could sleep with their wives. That would seem damaging. Without a deep and public kind of repentance, such as King David had when he sent Bathsheba's husband off to war, most informed inquirers would not need to pray about whether God used such an unrepentant scoundrel. This young man seems to accept these claims and says he has a testimony. He can't last thirty years with that. Are his children going to go out on the missions explaining that to people like me? 

I am glad you are a thoughtful Protestant. We are all on journeys. I am delighted that you escaped Mormonism without running in to the arms of atheism. That is the dilemma I consider when I have discussions about religion with Mormons. Maybe sometime you can explain to me why you have retained enough Mormonism to assume there was a "Lesser Apostasy"?

Thanks for your interest.

Rory

For what is worth, this view has lasted 50 years for me and I have taught my kids the way I see things, we have two temple marriages, two missions served out of 4 kids including two as yet unmarried daughters. Only one daughter decided not to go on a mission.

As a wise man said, "I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place."

That seems to have worked fine with my kids.  They understand that all humans come to earth innocent and yet with a taste for the carnal man which must be overcome.  I made sure they were never illusioned in the first place.  They know to follow their hearts and the Spirit, and like all of us sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. They know that the words of men are just that- words, nothing more, nothing less.   But that is what life is about, finding the best path.

The apostasy?  That was all about philosophy- nothing more, nothing less.  It was about Greek philosophy taking over the gospel leading to beliefs- you know the ones I harp on- infallibility, that "perfection" means "complete" and therefore "change is wrong".  THAT is wrong- the world is constantly changing and we need to adjust to it.  Substance theology leads to the Trinity, transubstantiation etc. Been there, discussed that ad nauseum.   But all of that IS philosophy- it's not the SPIRIT in our hearts- it's all words.

What's the solution to the apostasy?  Again it fights philosophy with philosophy.  The answer is Alma 32, Moroni 10, James 1 and every other scripture that talks about receiving a personal testimony and following it.  It is pragmatism.  THAT is actually the original foundational philosophy of the New Testiment. 

People were converted to Christ because of personal testimony.  So yes it is about philosophy.

But that is important to know because people die for philosophy.  THAT is why philosophical comprehension is so essential for humanity. Crusades happen.  The Hundred Years War and all wars of faith happen.  Terrorism happens - all because OF PHILOSOPHY.

"JUST PHILOSOPHY" is about the most important thing we should be worrying about because people die for it every single day, in wars all over the world.  They die for "democracy" they die for "communism", we are divided about "socialism" and "compassion" and how to achieve it or get rid of it.

For me there never WAS an apostasy of the Spirit- it was a battle of philosophies.  Of verbal explanations of HOW God works but religion should not about HOW anything works, it should be about WHY things work.   That distinction takes out all of what separates us- it takes out historicity, it takes out evolution, it takes out how many days it took to create the earth and all those issues I see as nonsense because religion is not about that

ALL come that way, that is life.  There was only one who was perfect and never sinned and that was the Incarnated God himself, Jesus the Christ.

The wonder is that belief in him can transform us from the carnal worms we are into glorious beings by following the gospel

Very honestly I now see you more as a brother than I ever have.   It appears that you now understand that it is "all words" except for what God communicates to our hearts.

Paradoxically this is the most "Mormon" post I have seen from you.  It concentrates on your personal testimony of Catholicism, and seems resigned to the fact that all that is left to argue is "philosophy" - an idea with which I agree most deeply.  And as Wittgenstein has shown, all it comes down to in the final analysis is semantic confusions.   I think that is demonstrated in this thread- worrying about what "intuition" means and if it can have the word "true" applied to the word "intuition"

I could easily have a testimony of transubstantiation and of the Trinity if God confirmed that to me.  I could be Catholic and forget all the philosophy as "just words" IF God revealed that to me.  He has not.

Yes we have had leaders who made mistakes.  You have had popes who made mistakes.  That seems to not bother you, and yet it bothers you that we have leaders who make mistakes

You know in your heart that Catholicism is true.  THAT is your true testimony.  There is nothing more to  be said about it.  In my heart I know Mormonism is true. That is my true testimony. There is nothing more to be said about it- words become irrelevant.

I love you bro!

In other words, we have come to see it the same way!  

Edited February 19, 2018 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

On 2/17/2018 at 4:46 PM, Brother Bear said:

To taste and bear testimony of the spiritual value contained in mormonism while holding the belief that Joseph Smith may have been sexually deviant, that historicity is irrelevant, or that leaders are quite capable of being racist is in no way blasphemous, contradictory, spiritually weak, or anti Mormon. Critics and defenders are engaged in this perpetual, stupid debate over Joseph Smith’s sex life, faces in hats, DNA, etc that is as useful a debate to one’s spirituality as two children arguing whether Batman or Ironman is the better superhero. 

If the church or gospel doesn’t work for a person that’s fine. If some one wants to defend or criticize JS’s behavior, go right ahead. But to argue as if these things are critical to the spiritual value of Mormonism is logically stupid. 

 

I am not debating spirituality. The reason critics and defenders analyze LDS origins is obviously with a view to either maintain or inhibit belief in your church. I am not saying everybody has to study these things and come to a conclusion. I enjoy defending the Catholic faith, sometimes even to a fault, but I understand being overwhelmed with claims against your church. I know plenty of good people who simply have faith that the Catholic Church is innocent of all of the historical charges laid at her door without reading about Inquisitions, Crusades, or Galileo. I am okay with Mormons who take a similar approach. "My New Mormonism" does NOT take a similar approach. "My New Mormonism" studies the subject matter and arrives at an anti-Mormon conclusion. 

In a way, it is like Mary and Martha. People like me need to be careful to get away from the hubbub and, "choose the better part" sitting at Jesus' feet once in a while. I would suggest that people like you need to see that Jesus didn't tell Martha to stop her activity.

Robert says something down below that I hadn't considered. I won't quote it here but the idea I got was that the LDS belief in lack of corresponding credible evidence for religious claims, does not mean that any individual Latter-day Saint believes the anti-Mormon. Rather, like you, who have a distaste, or even disdain for debating evidence, might still believe that Joseph was a good and holy man. Instead, you want to emphasize what you have perceived as good and true in your own life and not bother with what is for you personally, a stupid distraction. With that, I offer no objection. 

Regards,

Rory

    

 

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Exiled said:

As someone who doesn't attend the mormon church anymore, I didn't become agnostic due to still believing in a great apostasy.  I looked at the bible and saw its contradictions, how no actual words of jesus were preserved, and how religion can be better explained as a sociological phenomenon originating as a mechanism to exert group control.  This was what really turned me against any organized religion.  Nevertheless, I still grapple with what place religion should have in society even if it is myth in my opinion.  Most of my family is still active in mormonism and my ex-wife is christian.  So, I still have an interest in these issues due to family.  Every time I try to leave they pull me back in (to quote Al Pacino in Godfather III)

I can see your point.

I suggest you follow your gut and do what your gut wants you to do.  THAT is what religion should be, to me.

I see Mormonism as humanism perfected.  It glorifies Mankind and is the best path simply because it is the only one that sees God as a Perfected human and it sees humanity as having potential to reach perfection in what is called "Zion"

THAT is how I saw Mormonism from day 1.  God clobbered me with a testimony as well - but the intellectual part was what I just described.   That is not classical Mormonism, I know.  Oh well. 

But every doctrine is a derivative of that idea which makes a practical path to get to perfection.  You have a health code that separates you from others to remind you that you are on a different path.  It has local leaders as administrators who are sometimes actually right.  You have rituals that help you think of the importance of even dead humans while you get to contemplate the path to perfection symbolically.

For my that is all cool stuff that helps me immeasurably.  Your gut may go another way, but for me it works just fine to give me a purpose in life I never had before.  But that is the way I see it.

[3DOP]

32 minutes ago, Exiled said:

As someone who doesn't attend the mormon church anymore, I didn't become agnostic due to still believing in a great apostasy.  I looked at the bible and saw its contradictions, how no actual words of jesus were preserved, and how religion can be better explained as a sociological phenomenon originating as a mechanism to exert group control.  This was what really turned me against any organized religion.  Nevertheless, I still grapple with what place religion should have in society even if it is myth in my opinion.  Most of my family is still active in mormonism and my ex-wife is christian.  So, I still have an interest in these issues due to family.  Every time I try to leave they pull me back in (to quote Al Pacino in Godfather III)

Agnostic is a long way from atheism.

But anyway, I should anticipated that someone might reply this way. Obviously I am speculating. I have no wish to be dogmatic about it. What I meant, whether this can be applied to you or not, is that belief in a need for a Restoration implies belief that things were really bad before. It seems rare to me that the disaffected Mormon revisits the whole Apostasy question, which implies that there was a Christian church that was true in the first place. Instead, they keep their view that "things were really bad" before the Restoration, and conclude that there was no Apostasy to begin with, because there was never a true church, and probably not God either.

I need to retract my use of the term Great Apostasy, as though disaffected Mormons retain a belief in one true church at some time in history. I would adjust my words to say that disaffected LDS retain what is most damaging about apostasy theory, while adding to it doubt about the existence of God. There is too much ugliness and not enough beauty in any of the non-LDS religions to attract the heart. Religious history is an arid wasteland, and so perhaps, is the universe.

Thanks for your contribution. That objection and my retraction needed to be made. I am glad to get it out of the way.

3DOP

PS: I know the scene from Godfather III very well, and am hearing Michael's voice! Very funny. I am among the few who think III, with its flaw, casting Coppola's daughter for a major part, is perhaps the best. It satisfies me in every way. Michael pays dearly for his crimes in this life. But he makes confession, and serves a severe and lonely penance. I would have good hope for such a character's soul. Of course, being agnostic, you probably would have difficulty liking those parts of the story.

I wanted to jump ahead and grab this post immediately. Back to the next post in order...

[Exiled]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I can see your point.

I suggest you follow your gut and do what your gut wants you to do.  THAT is what religion should be, to me.

I see Mormonism as humanism perfected.  It glorifies Mankind and is the best path simply because it is the only one that sees God as a Perfected human and it sees humanity as having potential to reach perfection in what is called "Zion"

THAT is how I saw Mormonism from day 1.  God clobbered me with a testimony as well - but the intellectual part was what I just described.   That is not classical Mormonism, I know.  Oh well. 

But every doctrine is a derivative of that idea which makes a practical path to get to perfection.  You have a health code that separates you from others to remind you that you are on a different path.  It has local leaders as administrators who are sometimes actually right.  You have rituals that help you think of the importance of even dead humans while you get to contemplate the path to perfection symbolically.

For my that is all cool stuff that helps me immeasurably.  Your gut may go another way, but for me it works just fine to give me a purpose in life I never had before.  But that is the way I see it.

Like I said on another thread, I think your approach is where mormonism and religion should go.  What is practical and works for someone is very hard to disprove or challenge unless it interferes with what is practical and works for someone else.

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Agnostic is a long way from atheism.

But anyway, I should anticipated that someone might reply this way. Obviously I am speculating. I have no wish to be dogmatic about it. What I meant, whether this can be applied to you or not, is that belief in a need for a Restoration implies belief that things were really bad before. It seems rare to me that the disaffected Mormon revisits the whole Apostasy question, which implies that there was a Christian church that was true in the first place. Instead, they keep their view that "things were really bad" before the Restoration, and conclude that there was no Apostasy to begin with, because there was never a true church, and probably not God either.

I need to retract my use of the term Great Apostasy, as though disaffected Mormons retain a belief in one true church at some time in history. I would adjust my words to say that disaffected LDS retain what is most damaging about apostasy theory, while adding to it doubt about the existence of God. There is too much ugliness and not enough beauty in any of the non-LDS religions to attract the heart. Religious history is an arid wasteland, and so perhaps, is the universe.

Thanks for your contribution. That objection and my retraction needed to be made. I am glad to get it out of the way.

3DOP

PS: I know the scene from Godfather III very well, and am hearing Michael's voice! Very funny. I am among the few who think III, with its flaw, casting Coppola's daughter for a major part, is perhaps the best. It satisfies me in every way. Michael pays dearly for his crimes in this life. But he makes confession, and serves a severe and lonely penance. I would have good hope for such a character's soul. Of course, being agnostic, you probably would have difficulty liking those parts of the story.

I wanted to jump ahead and grab this post immediately. Back to the next post in order...

From what I gather from others and from what I went through myself, questioning one's religious path leads one to questioning a lot of things.  I think that is what happens to a lot of mormons who choose to leave and they end up leaving religion all together.

[3DOP]

On 2/17/2018 at 5:37 PM, CV75 said:

@3DOP, the transition you observed over time might be framed in terms of beating swords into plowshares, a form of God’s grace shed upon those who are overwhelmed by an onslaught of information they cannot keep up with coming from powerful media they cannot let go of, sufferers of two counts of co-dependence so prevalent in the digital age. They may not think or feel as independently as those less vulnerable or habituated, but their religious and spiritual thoughts and feelings are nonetheless real to them. Thanks be to God they have a testimony to hold to.

One of my favorite quotes is, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.” (Joseph Smith).

For such souls, and to the apologists, I think the “anti-Mormon” pieces of information have become less than appendages to appendages; they have become inert vestigials, destined to wither away. They have proven to be ineffectual in leading the body of saints or the Church astray, and especially in leading the  "weak" and "the little ones" away from Christ and the Restoration.

Thanks for trying to understand that I have perceived a change. At one time, LDS thought these topics being debated were important, and I assumed that they were right, while also assuming at least for sake of argument, that LDS apologists had offered adequate defenses to anti-Mormonism. As an outsider, I am having difficulty understanding why these topics now become so unimportant that not only may they be dismissed, but one can now be a Mormon and actually believe that the anti-Mormons are right! You wouldn't have heard that fifteen years ago.

I think I am coming to a better appreciation for why people like Brother Bear are just sick of such debates. But I am still a long ways from being able to accept that what was once reviled as anti-Mormon propaganda, is now acceptable to a LDS. I never did study these things. But I saw heated discussions. This transition makes me suspect that it is becoming clearer to Mormons that the anti-Mormons were correct all the time. I can't figure out why Mormon apologists fought tooth and nail over something so relatively meaningless. From this experience, I gained the impression that if the anti-Mormons were correct, it damaged LDS claims. That is why I now find it hard to swallow that it is okay if claims once considered anti-Mormon, are accurate.  

I like your favorite quote. It seems to indicate a belief in the historical events which were handed down to us by the Apostles. I also like that all the rest are appendages. Catholics could make distinction between Apostolic and post-apostolic revelation. The canon, or standard, is set and fixed. Subsequent messages sent from Heaven, all post-apostolic revelation, have to be as branches to the Apostolic trunk, and cannot stand alone.

Thank you for your thoughts CV75,

3DOP

Edited February 19, 2018 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 2/17/2018 at 5:49 PM, mfbukowski said:

I really don't have time to respond much if at all after this.

Is this a "private thread"?

Your quotes seem to be out of context, do not use the quote function and so are not linked to the actual quotes, especially the one which begins "And here you admit that you do not know it" which is clearly taken out of context on its face.

I love you too dude and I wish we could talk but there is no comprehension here of what I am saying and I am sorry about that.  You will never understand that all my quoting of Rorty and all my statements about religion actually HELP all religions including Catholicism.  But you refuse to understand my point of view- this is my last shot.

You do not understand William James nor his views on "Pragmatism" and his views on religious experience which is a boon to anyone in the mystic tradition.  It not only justifies visions of  Joseph Smith but it supports Fatima, Lourdes and other religious phenomena as does Rorty's view

Rorty puts forth the same definition of truth Alma does and that Moroni does and that James 1 does.  Yet you say that doctrine as somehow anti-Mormon because it does not fit with Bruce R McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" and so I become an anti-Mormon because he is the poster child for a direction in the church that the church is now leaving, but was NEVER a part of the restoration as Joseph saw it

BUT you cannot see that.  You do not understand that.

Some how in your mind if a view does not support Cartesian Dualism and Scholasticism it is automatically wrong because it conflicts with Catholic philosophy 

I would strongly suggest that if you are serious about seeking answers to these questions you read some books by Givens, Mason, Bushman and others

If anything what you call "New Mormonism" is a return to "old Mormonism" of Joseph Smith and away from the Protestant- leaning factions of the church.

Sorry dude but you are just uninformed about what was, and what is happening in the church all of which is positive

I am not going to look up the video from the kid that recently started some squabbles but others here will tell you that his view of polygamy was historically..... flawed.  

Let me try this and show you the problem.  This is a quote from New Advent about Pragmatism and seems to gets the point EXACTLY RIGHT- I have added the bold underlining and italics for emphasis

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12333b.htm

LOOK AT THAT

If Fatima is NOT based on "direct intuitive experience"- what IS it based on??  Where are the photos of Mary?  Even the Sun Miracle is based on the testimonies of individuals, and many did NOT see the phenomenon because they were "worldly"

Where is the evidence that God exists which can be shown to others??  NOWHERE!  If it existed all the world would be believers!

Visions are based on "actual or possible human experience, not of the inferential or deductivekind, but experience direct and intuitional. " OBVIOUSLY!!  And that is what they say is NO PROOF for God!!

THAT is precisely the atheist point of view - "There is no evidence for God".

Ever heard that one???  WHAT they are looking for is precisely what atheism insists on- they are agreeing with the atheists criteria for proof of God's existence!!

So where is the justification for visions?   The Catholicism they are putting forth appears to deny the importance of "DIRECT EXPERIENCE".  So out with Teresa of Avila, out with any mystical experience at all - out with the truth of "direct and intuitional experience"   Stephan looked into heaven and had a "direct intuitional experience" and did every other Catholic visionary.

And the end of the article criticizing Pragmatism because "Man is the measure of all things"

YEP that is precisely right because GOD is the measure of all things and God IS MAN in Mormonism.  Infinitely refined? Yes of course!   The Man of Holiness has a body exactly like ours.

We must have our own "DIRECT EXPERIENCE" and revelations from God- the Perfect Man.

And catch this- the most perfect statement ever- this article is incredibly accurate within its own universe, predicting its own downfall.  In criticizing Pragmatism - it says this:

Yes Mormonism is based on subjective experience.  Ever heard me say that before?  Now you know why.  It is individual testimony and personal revelation- the cornerstone of the church.

Yes it is individualistic because it promotes individual liberty and individual rights- not monarchies.

And thank God it has never grasped "Scholastic Realism" which has given us the Trinity and Transubstantiation.

And YES it closes the blur between philosophy and religion and humanism- as I have said before "When God is Human, humanism becomes Theology" and no, I was not kidding.

Mormons know there IS NO such thing as "showing that that belief is founded on inferential evidence, and that the "hypothesis of God" may be proved to be a fact."  THEY know that it is all based on faith- the "substance of things hoped for and NOT SEEN" except through "intuitional experience"

And yes of course "future prosperity" is the ultimate judge of a faith.  The gospel is to fill the earth, and what is happening now with Catholicism?

And how well is "Scholastic Realism" doing in the world now as opposed to Kuhnian paradigm shifts in the realm of prospering as a world view?  Do paradigm shifts lead to "error and disorganization"?  

Thanks for bringing it up, but I am about out of words and still expect you to not get it.  Sorry but we do not have a good history at this point.  I wanted to get together with you but it did not work out.

Mark

I really don't have time to respond much if at all after this.

Rory

Hah. I don't have time to respond to all of your responses..."after this"!

On a sincere note, I thank you for putting a lot of labor and what appears to me to be good will in to this and your subsequent posts. I hope you don't mind if I take some other replies first. I am eager to get Robert's post which I think helps me understand you better than you make me understand you. Heh. Later. It might need to cook until the weekend. I have a day off every other Monday, and I don't have much time any other weekdays.

Edited February 19, 2018 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 2/17/2018 at 7:41 PM, Josh Khinder said:

If you live in Vancouver, do you go to New Heights Church like me ?    

My sister dated a fellow from New Heights years ago. She and I both converted to the Catholic Church in 1995.

[Brother Bear]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Rather, like you, who have a distaste, or even disdain for debating evidence, might still believe that Joseph was a good and holy man. Instead, you want to emphasize what you have perceived as good and true in your own life and not bother with what is for you personally, a stupid distraction

Removed 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Brother Bear

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Like I said on another thread, I think your approach is where mormonism and religion should go.  What is practical and works for someone is very hard to disprove or challenge unless it interferes with what is practical and works for someone else.

Agreed

And I think that as it evolves it becomes clear that there ARE "eternal principles" which work for everyone within a human society which seeks peace and human growth.  One of these is the Golden Rule- treat others as you want to be treated.

Peaceful social interaction cannot be achieved without principles like that, so I think it works for everyone and if you want to call that an "Eternal Truth" I have no problem with that.

But notice also that that kind of thinking can also be described in terms of social evolution- so that almost becomes a secularly religious way of seeing it.  Those beliefs which lead to peace and harmony have survival value as beliefs precisely because they lead to human survival.

Sleep with some guy's wife and you might get shot, or at best perhaps have a messy divorce which distracts from productive pursuits etc.  It is not a desirable outcome

And so we have then the commandments.  Live them and you have peace, don't and you have conflict.

And then that leads to "family values".  Happy kids come from "family values" etc- all of which have survival value in a peaceful society

There is a first century document called the Didache which details the "Way of Life" and opposes it to "The Way of Death" which details this- and essentially it details Christian values, but it can be seen to do it from a pragmatic viewpoint.  Christian values simply work to lead to a happy life

One could argue that the fall of Rome was a lack of Christian values- constant seeking for power, killing off opponents etc and lack of moral living just leading to the fall of the society because it was not following the rules a peaceful society must have.

And Mormons essentially actually worship the Ideal Family- Father Son and.... Heavenly Mother/ the Goddess Wisdom who is always female- seen as the Holy Ghost and made male. 

That is the INTELLECTUAL reason I am LDS but the spirit - the "gut" always rules.  Intuition.

Always go with the gut- that is the translation in secularese for "follow the spirit" in Mormonese. 

I was an atheist before I found this church but I always thought this way so it is a very comfortable way for me to be.

 

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Mark

I really don't have time to respond much if at all after this.

Rory

Hah. I don't have time to respond to all of your responses..."after this"!

On a sincere note, I thank you for putting a lot of labor and what appears to me to be good will in to this and your subsequent posts. I hope you don't mind if I take some other replies first. I am eager to get Robert's post which I think helps me understand you better than you make me understand you. Heh. Later. It might need to cook until the weekend. I have a day off every other Monday, and I don't have much time any other weekdays.

No problem- I have as much time as the Lord gives me. 

 

[mfbukowski]

Regarding the Apostasy

There is really only one question here and that is the "solas".  Catholics and their break off sects (called "Protestants  ) all believe in the same principle that God is perfect and unchanging- from Greek Platonism, (in Greek "perfect" MEANS "completed" and there done, finished, not to be added to or changed in any way) and therefore revealed his "TRVTH" pure and unchanging ONCE for all times, not to be added to or changed in any way.

This is a "closed canon" - there is no more truth to be revealed

THAT is the total opposite of Mormonism.

Mormonism believes in a God who is himself progressing through his children.  Since he is a Father he is constantly teaching his children in personal revelation to EACH of his children because as parents know, each child just plain COMES with a different spirit.  Siblings differ from each other vastly in looks, temperament, etc. and so need to be taught each in their own way.  Each child is to find his own testimony by personal revelation and the church as a whole also changes as more revelation is received.

That is an "open canon"- there IS more truth to be revealed

In the past, wanting to be "Christian" many Mormons including leaders wanted to sit at the cool table with the cool Christians and so accepted principles like "unchanging absolute truth" which is by its very nature incompatible with an open canon.

We are now tired of trying to join the alleged "Christians" who do not believe as we do.  At least some of us feel that way.  If Christianity has stolen the word "Christian"- then so what?

It is just a word for a faith which....  will not survive the onslaught of secularism.  That is clear.  People just plain do not buy the idea of listening to Authority telling them what is right even if the Authority is the bible which is full of legends which do not stand up today. (that is the way it is seen by secularists)   They do not see the commandments as "practical" any more because..... wait for it.... secularism IS pragmatism.

So that is the apostasy and the restoration.

Our task as Mormons is to be constantly honoring the Restoration and constantly Restoring if we actually think we can BECOME more Godly

It is about BECOMING as a living church- the only true and LIVING church- is a church which BECOMES precisely because it IS ALIVE.

"Life is change and how it differs from the rocks"- Jefferson Airplane.

The "Rock of Ages" was originally a stream of living water like the Mississippi River- solid in its course of constant change and growth, flooding and ebbing in good or bad times, constantly adjusting but always eternal in its flow.

So which do we choose the Rock of continuing revelation of living water- or the Rock which contains only fossils of the "corpses of their metaphors" as Rorty as put it?

Should the church be constantly changing or forever fixed, be subject to changing metaphors along with linguistic change itself or frozen in language in fossilized metaphors?

THAT is what the "apostasy" was really about.

The Protestants only went half way and got stuck on five "solas".

Mormons should be taking it all the way down and restoring it as it comes from God.

Whether or not we have that figured out yet is another issue entirely.

[3DOP]

On 2/17/2018 at 11:00 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The racism of Brigham Young, which was opposed by Orson Pratt, is merely a sign of the times, and a view strongly shared among Caucasians generally then.  That has nothing to do with polygamy or the historicity of the BofM, which are of a very different character.

True.

Most scholars of Mormonism (Mormon & non-Mormon) share the view that orthopraxy is more important to Mormons than orthodoxy, and that faith for Mormons is superior to logic and scientific fact.  Mark is merely observing that one cannot prove the virgin birth or resurrection of Jesus to be a historical fact.  We accept it by faith.  He takes the same approach to BofM historicity, unconcerned with diatribes against it, because he believes it to be true by faith alone -- same as he does for the Israelite Exodus.

Mark is not claiming that the fundamentals of his religion are ahistorical, only that they are unprovable.  Like me and you, he does believe in "the reality of certain historical events."  By faith.   Like Abraham.

While it is true that no LDS apostle is a trained theologian or historian (though some are acholars), and so would never speak in the terms which Mark speaks, their religious beliefs are basically the same as his, and based on faith.  Of course, none of them would articulate their views the way Mark does.  After all, Mark is a trained philosopher.  But they would understand the focus Mark brings to the pragmatic faith which Mormonism represents.  It is a kind of "can do" Yankee pragmatism, the pioneer spirit, which has so infused recent Mormon history.  It works well, phenomenally well, and every apostle is proud of that fact.

Too often, Mark would say, we are so naive in defining "reality," which is really a social construct, that we miss the obvious nature of truth.  We think that mere words will substitute for "truth," but that is a fantasy.  Reality is so much deeper than mere words and definitions, and that is where pragmatism really shines.

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your patient attempt to help me understand Mark's position. I hope you are correct. I want to focus on two paragraphs:

Robert

Most scholars of Mormonism (Mormon & non-Mormon) share the view that orthopraxy is more important to Mormons than orthodoxy, and that faith for Mormons is superior to logic and scientific fact. 

3DOP

I understand about the orthopraxy.

I doubt if we are as far apart as it might seem with regards to faith. I hold that faith is superior with regards to the subject matter, but inferior with regards to the quality, or clarity, if you will, of the knowledge (through a glass dimly and all that). It cannot mean that faith is in conflict with logic or scientific fact. Okay so far? God does not ask us to believe by faith in that which is in conflict with scientific fact. Where there is conflict, either science or faith is wrong, or possibly both. 

Robert

Mark is merely observing that one cannot prove the virgin birth or resurrection of Jesus to be a historical fact.  We accept it by faith.  He takes the same approach to BofM historicity, unconcerned with diatribes against it, because he believes it to be true by faith alone -- same as he does for the Israelite Exodus."

3DOP

That is how I approach Book of Genesis historicity, "unconcerned with diatribes against it". I had grown to believe that Mark didn't believe in the need to believe, even by faith alone, in the "fundamental principles" cited by CV above. 

Robert 

Mark is not claiming that the fundamentals of his religion are ahistorical, only that they are unprovable.  Like me and you, he does believe in "the reality of certain historical events."  By faith.   Like Abraham.

3DOP

If that is so, I can retract my charge that he believes in ahistorical religion. It would be by faith alone, but it would be historical, and we would agree about that, thankfully, for once. I think he denies or at least doubts Book of Mormon historicity. But if he holds to the "the reality of certain historical events", namely those in the fundamental principles cited by CV75, I will back off of my strongest charge. 

This certainly helps me understand Mark's positive beliefs. I'll go through his posts more carefully this week, but I still don't get why he has so vigorously opposed me when I have suggested that it is problematic for a LDS to accept anti-Mormon claims. He even told me that he didn't think Joseph did what these anti-Mormons say. Something about making covenants and not using marital privileges. That satisfies me. So why such a strong opposition to me having a problem with the Restoration being founded by a cad...or having Apostles that are so racist that for the first century and a half of the Church, God could not reveal to them that they were wrong?

Not long ago at all, it seemed like these anti-Mormon claims were if true, a deal killer for most Mormons. I thought the apologists did fine enough with it. If I were LDS, I would have disregarded anti-Mormon claims too. But I find that It is still affecting Mormons like this young fellow in the video. It has obviously caused crises of faith to those who have had testimonies. How can anybody be surprised when non-Mormons are completely put off by it, when what you guys used to attack, is now acceptable?

Thanks again,

Rory