My New Mormonism

[3DOP]

On 2/18/2018 at 5:19 AM, boblloyd91 said:

Hi Rory, I just wanted to let you know that in spite of any differences you have with us as LDS I always enjoy hearing what you have to say and always add meaningful layers to any discussion we have. You strike me as a very kind person. Anyways to respond to your OP, I think it’s important to remember that those who post here and on other discussion boards in my opinion don’t really reflect the mainstream church. I am involved in several Facebook groups that are LDS. One is called “Millenial Mormonism” where millennials such as myself discuss the faith. I find that it’s there, with the rising generation so to speak, that one will most likely find attitudes similar to your concept of New Mormonism. Call it increased interaction with secularism, more exposure to information, or just a new generation trying to figure things out but that’s my observation. I know plenty of people still that would fit criteria for what you were used to in the past.

Thank you boblloyd. It is a relief that you do not know me very well!

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

If I was eating a steak and while doing so told you that I thought the rancher who produced the beef was cheating on his wife, would you call me anti-beef? If I objected to your reasoning would it make sense for you to assert that I have a disdain for debating evidence? That’s how ridiculous you sound to me right now.

 

 

Brother Bear,

I thought my post to you was conciliatory. I took you to mean that these arguments about Joseph's moral life, or alleged racism were unimportant and not worth your while. I thought you were saying you couldn't be sidetracked from what was important (your spiritual life) by giving them any attention. I said I respected that or had no quarrel with it or something along those lines. That's the truth. That was my perception of what you said. I wasn't saying that you should debate the evidence. I did not mean to assert that you have a disdain for debating evidence in general. I think I said something like "distaste, or even disdain". There is nothing wrong in my mind with finding it distasteful or disdainful for a LDS to argue with a non-Mormon who says that Joseph Smith was grossly immoral. I certainly didn't intend my comment to be an assertion about your character. It was more of an assumption based on what I thought you were saying. I didn't intend it as an insult in any way.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I still don't quite know what I apparently disagree with you about. I thought your first post was a good contribution to the discussion.

I have serious doubts about my intellectual ability to keep up here. So I probably said something stupid to you. But I don't even know what it was. Anyway, my apologies.

I thought I would get more encouragement, or at least less hostility. I have been, as mfbukowski has said repeatedly, "uninformed". I think I have learned a few things. I don't think I'll be starting any new threads for a while. What a mistake. And for the next few days at least, I think I will be the one with a "disdain for debate".

With tail between legs,

3DOP

---------------------------------

To all, I'm okay. Humiliation is distasteful medicine, but good for the soul. I thought "My New Mormonism" would resonate with some here. I was wrong. See you soon. 

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

..............................................

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. .......................................

I have yet to find a true conflict between faith and science, although human understanding of so many things is not settled or certain.  I tend to emphasize instances of scientific knowledge coinciding with faith/religion, even though they are very different modes of thought.

43 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

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. ......................

Since I have been dealing with academic history, archeology, and languages all my life, naturally I bring to bear all of that (and more) to the intellectual arena, and am quite willing to debate the issues with my fellow Mormons and with the anti-Mormons.  Along the way, I tend to learn a good deal that I didn't know before, which is very valuable.

43 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

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.

For Mark, proving the historicity of the Book of Mormon is completely unnecessary and irrelevant, and he is not alone in that respect.  He shares with most LDS apostles the view that a testimony must be based on the power of the Holy Spirit.  On the other hand, due to his training, he can see very clearly something which most Mormons cannot see:  In addition to being pragmatic, Mormonism is theologically humanistic, logical, and coherent in ways which are astonishing in a religion -- any religion.  I share that view.  He has written extensively on that subject, and I have been urging him to publish a book on that aspect of Mormonism.  If you are interested, you might want to read a book review he wrote not long ago:  “Untangling Scripture from the Philosophies of Men,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 65-78, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/ .

43 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

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?

When Joseph Smith was alive, Black men were ordained to the priesthood and even sent on missions.  In 1844, as a candidate for President, Joseph ran on a plank insisting that slavery must end.  He stated unequivocally that, if a Black man was raised the same way a White man was raised, he would be equal in every way.  With his death that year, those policies were not continued -- until 1978.

It is a pillar of Mormonism that revelation only comes when it is actively sought.  When one does not even realize that a revelation is needed, he isn't going to look for it, and Mormons (including their leaders) can be just as dense as anyone else.  Sometimes we just have to chalk it up to complacency or sloth.

43 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

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?................................

Most Mormons are unconcerned with anti-Mormon attacks, but those who are may have legitimate questions, and this life is supposed to be a test of faith anyhow.  Whether they can learn to listen to the Holy Spirit is pretty much up to them.

I don't see that much has changed in the nature of the attacks, nor in the responses by faithful Mormons.  The internet has made the debate more accessible, and information (and misinformation) much more readily available.  However, the digital revolution has also made the three purposes of the LDS Church far more achievable: (1) preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all mankind, (2) perfect the Saints, and (3) do the requisite genealogy & temple work for us and for all the dead.

In short, the work of salvation continues apace amidst the growing reach of the worldwide Church.

[Brother Bear]

27 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Brother Bear,

I thought my post to you was conciliatory. I took you to mean that these arguments about Joseph's moral life, or alleged racism were unimportant and not worth your while. I thought you were saying you couldn't be sidetracked from what was important (your spiritual life) by giving them any attention. I said I respected that or had no quarrel with it or something along those lines. That's the truth. That was my perception of what you said. I wasn't saying that you should debate the evidence. I did not mean to assert that you have a disdain for debating evidence in general. I think I said something like "distaste, or even disdain". There is nothing wrong in my mind with finding it distasteful or disdainful for a LDS to argue with a non-Mormon who says that Joseph Smith was grossly immoral. I certainly didn't intend my comment to be an assertion about your character. It was more of an assumption based on what I thought you were saying. I didn't intend it as an insult in any way.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I still don't quite know what I apparently disagree with you about. I thought your first post was a good contribution to the discussion.

I have serious doubts about my intellectual ability to keep up here. So I probably said something stupid to you. But I don't even know what it was. Anyway, my apologies.

I thought I would get more encouragement, or at least less hostility. I have been, as mfbukowski has said repeatedly, "uninformed". I think I have learned a few things. I don't think I'll be starting any new threads for a while. What a mistake. And for the next few days at least, I think I will be the one with a "disdain for debate".

With tail between legs,

3DOP

---------------------------------

To all, I'm okay. Humiliation is distasteful medicine, but good for the soul. I thought "My New Mormonism" would resonate with some here. I was wrong. See you soon. 

My bad 3DOP. Please accept my apology for being a jerk with my last post. I appreciate your efforts to be a peacemaker and to dialogue in a kind way.

With tail also between legs,

BB

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have yet to find a true conflict between faith and science, although human understanding of so many things is not settled or certain.  I tend to emphasize instances of scientific knowledge coinciding with faith/religion, even though they are very different modes of thought.

Since I have been dealing with academic history, archeology, and languages all my life, naturally I bring to bear all of that (and more) to the intellectual arena, and am quite willing to debate the issues with my fellow Mormons and with the anti-Mormons.  Along the way, I tend to learn a good deal that I didn't know before, which is very valuable.

For Mark, proving the historicity of the Book of Mormon is completely unnecessary and irrelevant, and he is not alone in that respect.  He shares with most LDS apostles the view that a testimony must be based on the power of the Holy Spirit.  On the other hand, due to his training, he can see very clearly something which most Mormons cannot see:  In addition to being pragmatic, Mormonism is theologically humanistic, logical, and coherent in ways which are astonishing in a religion -- any religion.  I share that view.  He has written extensively on that subject, and I have been urging him to publish a book on that aspect of Mormonism.  If you are interested, you might want to read a book review he wrote not long ago:  “Untangling Scripture from the Philosophies of Men,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 65-78, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/ .

When Joseph Smith was alive, Black men were ordained to the priesthood and even sent on missions.  In 1844, as a candidate for President, Joseph ran on a plank insisting that slavery must end.  He stated unequivocally that, if a Black man was raised the same way a White man was raised, he would be equal in every way.  With his death that year, those policies were not continued -- until 1978.

It is a pillar of Mormonism that revelation only comes when it is actively sought.  When one does not even realize that a revelation is needed, he isn't going to look for it, and Mormons (including their leaders) can be just as dense as anyone else.  Sometimes we just have to chalk it up to complacency or sloth.

Most Mormons are unconcerned with anti-Mormon attacks, but those who are may have legitimate questions, and this life is supposed to be a test of faith anyhow.  Whether they can learn to listen to the Holy Spirit is pretty much up to them.

I don't see that much has changed in the nature of the attacks, nor in the responses by faithful Mormons.  The internet has made the debate more accessible, and information (and misinformation) much more readily available.  However, the digital revolution has also made the three purposes of the LDS Church far more achievable: (1) preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all mankind, (2) perfect the Saints, and (3) do the requisite genealogy & temple work for us and for all the dead.

In short, the work of salvation continues apace amidst the growing reach of the worldwide Church.

Agree 100%

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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

Just some quick notes even though this was not addressed to me.  I find consistency to be the Prime Directive.  If you violate consistency in one's position, everything becomes jibberish because you don't know what is right or wrong.

You said

Quote

 

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. 

 

Since you did not quote the fundamental principles I had to look them up.  They are essentially that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, he died and atoned for our sins, resurrected and is God and our savior.  The words are not in front of me

I hold these to be true in the same way I hold all other principles of historicity-  that when something cannot be PROVEN historically, one accepts them on faith that they are true.

You said

Quote

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. 

So how is belief in the fundamental principles different from Genesis, in principle?   Why are the fundamental principles in a different category as to evidence?  Both of these sets of "facts" are religious beliefs taken on faith

That Jesus atoned for our sins  and was born of a virgin is more believable from a secular viewpoint than God creating the earth in 6 days?   I think that is inconsistent and a "special pleading" for some alleged "facts" from the same source- the Bible- than the others.  Both set of "facts" are religious beliefs.

One cannot PROVE the events considered fundamental here as "historic" there fore I see them as in the same category.

I cannot fathom why you would understand it in the case of Genesis and deny it in other cases.  That is inconsistent.

I do not believe the nightly news, I know the alleged facts will change

I do not believe all of science, I know the alleged facts will change.

I accept science on faith, that if I take this pill, I will get better.  That may or may not be true.  The airplane will fly safely.  The car will start when I turn the key.  You will actually be able to see this message by means I don't come close to fully understanding.

But for all of those, it ain't necessarily so.  (cue the music....  )

I know the gospel is true in my gut. Deep inside me I know that God has revealed it to my heart and I am CERTAIN that Jesus is the savior and died for us- all of that-  because God revealed it to me, NOT because it can be proven as a scientific fact.

I trust God over science.  If he told me not to take that pill I would not.

There are no facts only interpretations of data which someone has made up.  I trust God above other people.   If you find that odd, so be it. 

Historic proof is only someone else's report by hearsay.   I take the evidence of God speaking to my heart above hearsay.  I would not trust my eternal salvation to hearsay and I think that people who do are......  mistaken and naive to do so.

In God we trust.  All others are potential crooks looking out for their own interest. 

You said

Quote

 

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. 

 

Again, I see the same inconsistency here.  I have stated my case, and do not acknowledge your "charges", retracted or not.  These are "beyond diatribes" to quote your own words. 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just some quick notes even though this was not addressed to me.  I find consistency to be the Prime Directive.  If you violate consistency in one's position, everything becomes jibberish because you don't know what is right or wrong.

You said

Since you did not quote the fundamental principles I had to look them up.  They are essentially that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, he died and atoned for our sins, resurrected and is God and our savior.  The words are not in front of me

I hold these to be true in the same way I hold all other principles of historicity-  that when something cannot be PROVEN historically, one accepts them on faith that they are true.

You said

So how is belief in the fundamental principles different from Genesis, in principle?   Why are the fundamental principles in a different category as to evidence?  Both of these sets of "facts" are religious beliefs taken on faith

That Jesus atoned for our sins  and was born of a virgin is more believable from a secular viewpoint than God creating the earth in 6 days?   I think that is inconsistent and a "special pleading" for some alleged "facts" from the same source- the Bible- than the others.  Both set of "facts" are religious beliefs.

One cannot PROVE the events considered fundamental here as "historic" there fore I see them as in the same category.

I cannot fathom why you would understand it in the case of Genesis and deny it in other cases.  That is inconsistent.

I do not believe the nightly news, I know the alleged facts will change

I do not believe all of science, I know the alleged facts will change.

I accept science on faith, that if I take this pill, I will get better.  That may or may not be true.  The airplane will fly safely.  The car will start when I turn the key.  You will actually be able to see this message by means I don't come close to fully understanding.

But for all of those, it ain't necessarily so.  (cue the music....  )

I know the gospel is true in my gut. Deep inside me I know that God has revealed it to my heart and I am CERTAIN that Jesus is the savior and died for us- all of that-  because God revealed it to me, NOT because it can be proven as a scientific fact.

I trust God over science.  If he told me not to take that pill I would not.

There are no facts only interpretations of data which someone has made up.  I trust God above other people.   If you find that odd, so be it. 

Historic proof is only someone else's report by hearsay.   I take the evidence of God speaking to my heart above hearsay.  I would not trust my eternal salvation to hearsay and I think that people who do are......  mistaken and naive to do so.

In God we trust.  All others are potential crooks looking out for their own interest. 

You said

Again, I see the same inconsistency here.  I have stated my case, and do not acknowledge your "charges", retracted or not.  These are "beyond diatribes" to quote your own words. 

 

Mark, you don't seem to realize that you have won the day. I surrendered already.

But I hate that you are giving people the idea that I think it is okay for me to deal with Genesis historicity as described, but it is not okay for you to apply the same principle elsewhere. I would have thought it was obvious that I was relating well with Robert's explanation. When I noted that I do the same thing as you, it was an obvious admission that I cannot oppose the principle. Can you see the difference between a concession and an attack?

This, to me at least, is a clear example of being understood to be attacking Mormonism when I know that was not my intent. Its like you just can't believe that I would try to be fair. I feel like my words are being ignored, and replaced with an ungrounded conviction that deep down my motives are evil. I believe as a Catholic that I am obliged to give other religions a just and fair hearing. Although I know I cannot believe what they do, I am strictly prohibited from misrepresenting their positions in any way. I would consider it sinful if I were to deliberately falsify information or deliberately use illogical arguments, even if they were successful in convincing someone to join the Catholic Church. I know that I must make every effort to let Mormons explain to me what they believe, and not the other way around.

What an abominable thread. I am so sorry I tried it.   

[3DOP]

5 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

My bad 3DOP. Please accept my apology for being a jerk with my last post. I appreciate your efforts to be a peacemaker and to dialogue in a kind way.

With tail also between legs,

BB

 

I happily accept your unsolicited apology. I really figured I had said something unintelligible and didn't know what it was. I don't have good memory anymore and have little reason to have confidence when someone questions my intellect. I have feared that I am experiencing the onset of early dementia.

I probably shouldn't admit that. I know I'll get all kinds of sympathy now. You all are good people and like me. It was just a bad idea to start this thread. Like I said, I am okay...even if I am going crazy. Heh.  

[Storm Rider]

11 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mark, you don't seem to realize that you have won the day. I surrendered already.

But I hate that you are giving people the idea that I think it is okay for me to deal with Genesis historicity as described, but it is not okay for you to apply the same principle elsewhere. I would have thought it was obvious that I was relating well with Robert's explanation. When I noted that I do the same thing as you, it was an obvious admission that I cannot oppose the principle. Can you see the difference between a concession and an attack?

This, to me at least, is a clear example of being understood to be attacking Mormonism when I know that was not my intent. Its like you just can't believe that I would try to be fair. I feel like my words are being ignored, and replaced with an ungrounded conviction that deep down my motives are evil. I believe as a Catholic that I am obliged to give other religions a just and fair hearing. Although I know I cannot believe what they do, I am strictly prohibited from misrepresenting their positions in any way. I would consider it sinful if I were to deliberately falsify information or deliberately use illogical arguments, even if they were successful in convincing someone to join the Catholic Church. I know that I must make every effort to let Mormons explain to me what they believe, and not the other way around.

What an abominable thread. I am so sorry I tried it.   

Dear Brother Rory, you should not feel sorry for beginning this thread. I thought it was and is a very good one.  For me the onus to answering your questions rests firmly on the shoulders of LDS.

This Forum does not come close to reflecting the common LDS who attends church weekly.  I think the vast majority of members have very little in common with the types of questions and many of the answers provided here.  Frankly, I thank God the common member comes much closer to the woman who gave her all rather than what is reflective in the types of questions/answer found on this forum.  As I have said before, this Forum has progressively become a place where I do not feel comfortable and do not feel "my people" are represented.  That is not to say that we don't have many wonderful individuals here; we do.

I think most of what you have heard on this Forum is a reflection of the critic.  These are they that do not consider all of the miracles attributed to Joseph Smith or simply a fair representation of him as a son, brother, husband, father, and true witness that Jesus is the Christ the son of the Living God.  This the major part of the man that is never spoken of on this Forum.  The concept of faith promoting history has fallen by the wayside in place of what is supposed to be a balanced discussion of the man, a rough stone rolling through mortal life.

I think I agree with you - there is a New Mormonism that differs from traditional Mormonism.  In many ways it is stripped of spirituality as its focus is the secular lives of the saints and the prophets.  

If I was to provide a comparison; these would be individuals that could not appreciate St Thérèse of Lisieux.  They would slowly dismember her for her commonness and lack of greatness in the eyes of humanity. They would miss completely her overwhelming Christ-like life.

I acknowledge that I speak harshly of some of the LDS here; I have a particularly sour taste in my mouth at present.  Let's just say I find that I have to look far too long to find anything uplifting here.  Yet, I will say even in this site's current poor condition it remains better than the Catholic site.  I say that knowing that you yourself found it far less than fair, honest, or in keeping with a neutral representation of other religions and the discussion reflected such a state.  

You remain a bright spot here; thank you for your participation and may both Saints and saints bless you always.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Storm Rider

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mark, you don't seem to realize that you have won the day. I surrendered already.

But I hate that you are giving people the idea that I think it is okay for me to deal with Genesis historicity as described, but it is not okay for you to apply the same principle elsewhere. I would have thought it was obvious that I was relating well with Robert's explanation. When I noted that I do the same thing as you, it was an obvious admission that I cannot oppose the principle. Can you see the difference between a concession and an attack?

This, to me at least, is a clear example of being understood to be attacking Mormonism when I know that was not my intent. Its like you just can't believe that I would try to be fair. I feel like my words are being ignored, and replaced with an ungrounded conviction that deep down my motives are evil. I believe as a Catholic that I am obliged to give other religions a just and fair hearing. Although I know I cannot believe what they do, I am strictly prohibited from misrepresenting their positions in any way. I would consider it sinful if I were to deliberately falsify information or deliberately use illogical arguments, even if they were successful in convincing someone to join the Catholic Church. I know that I must make every effort to let Mormons explain to me what they believe, and not the other way around.

What an abominable thread. I am so sorry I tried it.   

Well I am VERY sorry you feel this way, my brother.  Let's try to fix that!!

Obviously as usual something is lost in the translation.  I am very logical and VERY conscious of every word I say.  I think that is the reason Robert tells the tail better than I do because he tells the story more using the vernacular and I have actually disagreed slightly with his choice of words because they were not precise enough or "philosophical" enough on this thread which for me is ABOUT philosophy.  I have felt I was attacked in the first post and felt you wanted me to renounce Pragmatism.  I won't go over it line by line but I am sure that spirit is there.  You have said things like "If x, I will retract the charge that he believes in ahistorical religion".  All that does is rile me up BIG TIME.  In the moment I was thinking "who is this guy who doesn't understand a word I say to "charge" me with anything?"

But I got better!  So i think we are both sensitive souls who get hurt easily despite bravado, at least I am that way I know.

So let me take this apart line by line- don't worry I am doing this so we understand each other better

Quote

But I hate that you are giving people the idea that I think it is okay for me to deal with Genesis historicity as described, but it is not okay for you to apply the same principle elsewhere. I would have thought it was obvious that I was relating well with Robert's explanation. When I noted that I do the same thing as you, it was an obvious admission that I cannot oppose the principle. Can you see the difference between a concession and an attack?

 I am giving people that impression??   I was using the words you said and taking them literally!!

Here are your words to Robert regarding the fact that I take BOM historicity on faith

Quote

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. 

Now let me diagram the argument according to my interpretation of the above words

Quote

 

IF it is so that Bukowski takes BOM historicity by faith. that it was historical THEN we would agree

BUT if he holds to the reality of certain historical events (ie that they provably really happened) namely those in the fundamental principles (virgin birth, Incarnation, atonement, resurrection) THEN (and only then) I will back off my strongest charge

 

My reply was that I DO NOT believe that they "provably really happened" but that I take that they "really happened" on faith as a religious principle in itself.

I saw that as a contradiction to your statement that Genesis could be taken as historical, stating that however, even if Genesis can be taken on faith to be historical, the fundamental events needed to be provably historical instead.

I suppose now that the confusion was based on the phrasing "the reality of certain historical events"-  PERHAPS you meaning by that phrase that the "reality is provable OR perhaps you meaning that we take that "reality" on faith.

If it was the second alternative, then we have no argument and never did.  

But as I said these distinctions in ambiguous use of words are essential in philosophy but not in ordinary discourse.

So bottom line, I suspect we never had a problem- and if you accept the above, we never did and it was all semantics which of course is what always happens in philosophy thereby proving Wittgenstein right. 

Which is why I wanted to meet with you over a.... hot chocolate... and get it all cleared up verbally in about 15 minutes in eyeball to eyeball communication.

So I felt threatened by the thread- it felt like an attack

You felt I was attacking you back.  Yes it was a mess but I think that section on Pragmatism in the Catholic encyclopedia really showed how I could never be a philosophical Catholic again unless God led me there by the spirit.

All is well, I apologize for anything which offended you- I never saw it as a contest to be "won"- I only wanted to explain my point of view to you and I think Robert did that better than I could!

We got fouled up in the clarity demanded by philosophy- sorry for that!

All my best!

[CV75]

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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

I did not realize this was such a hot topic—I guess I’ve missed quite a number of threads!

The anti-Mormons may be correct on a data point, and believed to be right in a particular conclusion, but they are certainly not right in spirit. Often they are wrong across the board! For this reason, we can fellowship with someone who has a spiritual testimony yet accepting anti-Mormon facts. Of course, a testimony is functionally a fact, hence the testimony of Jesus’ victory over sin and death translates into a life of observing ordinances and covenants no matter how one imagines such appendages to have come about. As long as one does this, it doesn’t matter if he believes an anti-Mormon charge, and believing it does not mean the anti-Mormon charge is correct. This diffuses the impact of much of what anti-Mormons have to say.

Even in my Joseph Smith quote, there is no statement of fact but of principle, testimony and concerns: “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 [the appendages], 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.” The testimony is that Jesus did certain things, and that drives the appendages, which are those things that we do with our testimony (e.g. receive the Holy Ghost, apply faith and spiritual gifts, restore Israel, and sustain truth). The religion is ultimately about doing, not so much about facts and believing them, though these do produce the part that we put to work, the testimony.

I believe the scholarship will continue to improve for both anti-Mormons and LDS apologists. As that is done, I believe they will continue to become less of a threat to each other and tolerate each other better. I perceive this particular development is part of a larger evolution of global attitudes from liberal humanism to "dataism."  It doesn’t change Mormonism, though.

Regarding the Bible as being set and fixed, I see it as a catalyst for our becoming “the epistle of Christ ministered …written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God …in fleshy tables of the heart.” (2 Corinthians 3:3). This is how Joseph Smith went for answers after he read the Bible. As a convert to Mormonism, it is what I did after having the Bible (I read it cover-to-cover when I was 10 years old, not that I understood much) and an upbringing in a Christian nation (my home only nominally so). Thus I see the Bible as part of an open canon that includes us human “epistles of Christ” as well as the scriptures of the Restoration.

[MiserereNobis]

On 2/18/2018 at 6:57 PM, mfbukowski said:

 

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

Obviously Catholics are ok with this prayer since it is a Catholic prayer  I want to clarify that "Every path can lead me to you" has to be understood within the context of the purpose of the prayer itself. The purpose is to find a vocation within the Catholic Church. One of the beauties of the size and history of Catholicism is that there are many many different types of spiritualities (so to speak) and so we can seek the one that God wants for us, the one that matches best the type of person God made us to be and wants us to be. So I could be a parish priest, or a friar, or a contemplative, or a family man, or a family man who works with friars to alleviate poverty, or a parish priest who spends most private free time in contemplation, or on and on. I just wanted to make sure that anyone reading this didn't think the statement "Every path" means paths outside of Catholicism. It does not.

And yes, you are completely right that this is a prayer to find God's will for one's own self in one's heart. In some ways, this might be more "Mormon" (as you are describing it) than actual Mormonism, since jobs/vocations in the Mormon church come by someone above you in authority asking you to do it, not God telling you in your heart that's what you are going to do. In discerning a vocation, the individual struggles with God to find the vocation. The individual does not wait for an authority figure to tell them what their vocation is. Of course, one would work with an authority figure -- for instance, if one feels called to be a monastic, one would have to work with the monastery, abbott, and vocations director to see if the vocation to that particular monastery/order is appropriate. But the abbott doesn't call you up and say, "we are calling you to be a monk." Instead, the individual approaches the monastery after seeking God's will on the matter.

Quote

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

Let's start by looking at your bolded quote from the article. You left off the most important point (though you do try to address it later). The quote in its entirety is:

"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."

Of course Catholicism believes that we can have a direct experience of God! The most obvious and blatant example of that are the contemplative monastic orders, whose entire purpose is to have that experience. But it permeates Catholicism in its entirety. The vocations prayer you quoted is another example of having an experience of God.

The key is the phrase "except in the supernatural order," which you originally truncated. We can only experience God in the supernatural order of things. Any contemplative experience is going to be supernatural. 

The writer of the article goes on to point out at the end of the quote that the pragmatist denies the distinction between natural and supernatural so the idea that God can only be experienced in the supernatural is not accepted by the pragmatist. Instead, the pragmatist collapses everything to the natural order.

And lo and behold, this is exactly what you do:

Quote

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".

So you do not accept the Catholic understanding of experiencing God directly because, as a pragmatist, you do not accept the supernatural. Now, I'm not going to get into a debate on whether you or Catholicism is right (though obviously you know where I stand on that, ha). I just find it interesting in your attack on this article you did exactly what the article's author said you would do: deny the supernatural.

So yes, Catholics can have direct experience of God, but not as the pragmatists think. And of course the pragmatists think we are misunderstanding our experiences of God. But here's where I get to toss in some relativity and pragmatism and say that you don't get to explain my subjective experiences to me

At the risk of telling Mormons what they believe, I think from what I see you are right about Mormon philosophy. It is humanism, since the belief that God is a man necessarily elevates humans to the highest level possible. It is also materialism, since Mormons believe that spirit is just refined matter and there this is nothing supernatural, just natural that we do not understand. There are no miracles, just a lack of understanding on our part. Mormonism, like modernism (post- or otherwise) has rejected one of the oldest and most globally prevalent ideas: the great chain of being. Instead of having different types of being on different levels, Mormonism, like modernism, has collapsed it all down to matter and humanity. God is a human, angels are human, etc. If you think I have misunderstood you and Mormonism on these points, let me know.

Huston Smith, the author of The World's Religions (3 million copies sold), wrote a small but wonderful book on this topic: Forgotten Truth. He's got some street cred: chair of the philosophy department at MIT for 15 years.

Anyways, I don't really want to get into philosophically arguing who is right or wrong here. I just wanted to point out that the Catholic view is at least consistent and not as contradictory as you made it appear.

[clarkgoble]

Quote

I used an expression, "New Mormonism", a few weeks ago to object to a video wherein it seemed to me like this well-meaning young fellow, who loved being LDS and intends to continue, but was nevertheless in agreement with a lot of claims against the CoJCoLDS.

I think the Church wants people at Church whether their beliefs make sense or not. It's not hard to find people who have odd beliefs teaching in class. Sometimes the beliefs are at least somewhat understandable (no death before the fall) even if not an actual formal doctrine. (And easy to demonstrate that they're wrong) My son recently had some struggles because his Sunday School teacher said the earth was only 7000 years old which made my son think they were idiots (he doesn't exactly have a lot of social development yet) and not want to go to Church. Likewise a Sunday School teaching taught evolution was wrong while our Bishop was a microbiologist at BYU (along with several chemists and chemical engineers working on genetic engineering). The Bishop just said, "I don't agree." It was clear what his position was but he didn't make a big deal about it.

I think people freak out when people have mistaken beliefs too much. (I'm probably someone who should do better myself - I tend to stay quiet in Sunday School but when something egregious sprouts up I'll comment)

Now if people want to discuss what is likely true, supplying arguments, I'm your guy. But most people don't really and honestly most people have a lukewarm knowledge of doctrine at best usually tied to what they've read from a favorite apostle.

Edited February 20, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

since jobs/vocations in the Mormon church come by someone above you in authority asking you to do it, not God telling you in your heart that's what you are going to do.

That's not actually true. Yes there are formal callings but ideally we should be listening to the spirit and acting upon it to serve other people. This is constantly harped on. God primarily helps others by inspiring people. Mormon F&T meetings frequently mention someone being inspired to do something. One that sticks with me is Blake Ostler's story about feeling inspired to talk to a stranger on a park bench. Needless to say that goes against a lot of social norms and gets one well out of their comfort zone. But he did it. It turned out he prevented a suicide. So that sort of thing happens more often than we think. If anything I think the Church falters because not enough people are listening and acting.

Formal vs. informal lines of action matter a lot. While it's completely understandable why formal lines - particularly priesthood ones - get focused on a lot that's simply not all that's going on. Even absent inspiration we're supposed to be charitable and doing good deeds on our own. That central to the conception within Mormonism of being a Christian. So when it snows any my neighbor in her later 60's who has to leave early in the morning for work, we come out and shovel for her even though she's an ex-Mormon. We feel a stewardship independent of any formal line of action. (Although occasionally the Bishopric has called people)

Likewise even within formal callings you're supposed to seek God's will in how to teach. So while the formal lines give directions, they're usually quite vague. The rest is left up to your reason, heart and hopefully listening to the Holy Ghost. I can think of some examples just Sunday in my primary class.

 

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The key is the phrase "except in the supernatural order," which you originally truncated. We can only experience God in the supernatural order of things. Any contemplative experience is going to be supernatural. 

While I'm a pragmatist somewhat like Mark, I tend to come from the more scientific oriented side that focuses on Peirce and realism. So I tend to look askance at James' writings on religious experience. That said, I think what we'd both criticize is the meaning of "supernatural." As used in contemporary thought it seems to owe much more to Hume than I think medieval doctrine or philosophy. Hume tends to mean it in the sense of particularism versus the regularities of the natural order (which of course in those days was seen as much more regular than today). 

I think what both Mark and I would say is that the distinction between supernatural versus natural isn't a helpful category or opposition. That's doubly so for Mormons who at least have materialist inclinations even if not necessarily an explicit commitment to materialism.

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So you do not accept the Catholic understanding of experiencing God directly because, as a pragmatist, you do not accept the supernatural.

Pragmatists are fine with experiencing God directly. It's whether the notion of "supernatural" is coherent. It might be helpful to define or at least describe what you mean by supernatural. I tend to find most debates about it ultimately silly as most people just mean "stuff God or divine beings like angels or demons do." In which case if there is any opposition at all it's just that science has no conclusive evidence for such phenomena. But that's a weak sense of both natural and supernatural and not worth quibbling over.

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

At the risk of telling Mormons what they believe, I think from what I see you are right about Mormon philosophy. It is humanism, since the belief that God is a man necessarily elevates humans to the highest level possible. It is also materialism, since Mormons believe that spirit is just refined matter and there this is nothing supernatural, just natural that we do not understand. There are no miracles, just a lack of understanding on our part.

While Mormons believe spirits are material in some way, it's not at all clear in what way. But more importantly just because spirits are material doesn't mean everything is. So a popular view in the 20th century was to separate out "intelligence" as a Cartesian mind or Thomist soul as what is uncreated. That was seen as immaterial. Likewise at least some Mormons have seemed to imply there were eternal laws applying to all universes that were reified in some way. 

I'm not saying those views were correct. I don't agree with them. But they were popular and still are to a lesser degree today. So we have to be careful with Mormon materialism. Even Joseph's view of spirits some have suggested may have much to do with the neoplatonic conception of the upper soul and lower soul. Both were material but the upper soul was considered spiritual matter. (I'm simplifying to the point of error as the details don't matter - just that things are complex)

Mormons tend to reject the idea of nature as a regular set of laws with supernatural being violation of those laws (as in Hume). But again I think the medieval view of miracles was more complex than you suggest even if not quite the same as the Mormon view. (Which is mostly just God knowing the laws and thus able to act in a high technological way) The obvious question is how on earth one could distinguish between the two. If lightning and fire consumes Elijah's sacrifice and kills the false priests, is there any way to distinguish what is or isn't a violation of natural law? Not that I can see. That seems true for all miracles. The reason for wanting a distinction tends to relate to other ontological commitments that arose in late antiquity in Christianity. But I don't think there's any phenomenological way to distinguish them since ultimately it's an ontological not phenomenal claim.

When there's no way to distinguish something pragmatists usually say it's not worth talking about. (For a difference to be a difference it must make a difference)

There's no real obvious scriptural reason to see miracles and needing some special ontological status IMO.

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Mormonism, like modernism, has collapsed it all down to matter and humanity.

I'm not sure that's true. As I said Mormon materialism is much more complicated and ill defined than some take it. But I'm not sure "humanism" really describes us. Yes there are some parallels, but what counts is God who seems to have transcended humanity in at least some key ways. At least in the sense that secular humanists use the term. God simply have capabilities no human can have as a mortal. Which undermines the significance of humanism quite a bit. More significantly the epistemological implications that humanists since the Renaissance have taken from "man is the measure of all things" don't apply to Mormons. The whole point of Mormonism is in effect to awaken people to a recognition that we are much more than a secular humanist would ever concede. We are gods in embryo able to be one with God. So if you're going to raise a humanism maybe the humanism of the American transcendentalists comes closer (although I'd argue still short). But humanism along is very distortive.

 

[churchistrue]

I think I understand what 3DOP is saying. I have been blogging for a few years now. Someone else called what I was proposing "New Mormonism", so I ran with that label for a while.  http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/new-mormonism/

I've heard various people use the term, especially Greg Prince. Lately, I've heard the term Neo Apologists. A lot of people tend to not like these labels, thinking they are divisive or a tip off to mainstream Mormons that it is apostate. 

Everyone will use slightly different ways to describe this. I am kind of extreme in my New Mormonism. For me, it's a belief in the lived experience of Mormonism. It's a view of scripture and historical events as metaphorical not literal. It's a more humanist version, either acknowledging the supernatural claims are dubious or simply bracketing them. Book of Mormon is not historical. First Vision was something, but likely not like the official 1838 account. I don't view exclusivity or priesthood ordinances quite the same. I follow the logic of the Liberal Christian scholars like Borg, Crossan, Enns who are devout despite not believing in many of the orthodox, literal claims. 

Others may view New Mormonism as something a little bit different, but this is what it is it to me. Labels are not always good, but they are useful at least for a first level of communication. These are pretty wild ideas to the average Mormon, so it helps to spell them out. 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by churchistrue

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not actually true. Yes there are formal callings but ideally we should be listening to the spirit and acting upon it to serve other people. This is constantly harped on. God primarily helps others by inspiring people. Mormon F&T meetings frequently mention someone being inspired to do something. One that sticks with me is Blake Ostler's story about feeling inspired to talk to a stranger on a park bench. Needless to say that goes against a lot of social norms and gets one well out of their comfort zone. But he did it. It turned out he prevented a suicide. So that sort of thing happens more often than we think. If anything I think the Church falters because not enough people are listening and acting.

Formal vs. informal lines of action matter a lot. While it's completely understandable why formal lines - particularly priesthood ones - get focused on a lot that's simply not all that's going on. Even absent inspiration we're supposed to be charitable and doing good deeds on our own. That central to the conception within Mormonism of being a Christian. So when it snows any my neighbor in her later 60's who has to leave early in the morning for work, we come out and shovel for her even though she's an ex-Mormon. We feel a stewardship independent of any formal line of action. (Although occasionally the Bishopric has called people)

Likewise even within formal callings you're supposed to seek God's will in how to teach. So while the formal lines give directions, they're usually quite vague. The rest is left up to your reason, heart and hopefully listening to the Holy Ghost. I can think of some examples just Sunday in my primary class.

I was responding to Mark's commentary on the vocation prayer. A vocation in Catholicism is going to be like a formal calling, not the informal examples of serving you give. One doesn't pray the vocation prayer to help a neighbor or to talk to someone on a bench. So while I could be certainly wrong (ha) and I'm sure there is more nuance to it than I understand, the examples you give do not match up with what Mark was describing: a prayer for vocations in Catholicism.

And thank you for the rest of your response. I'm not really into engaging in philosophical debate here (I'll leave that up to you and Mark). The purpose of my previous post was simply to clarify the Catholic position as is related to experiencing God directly and to show it was not as inconsistent as Mark was portraying it. Catholics most definitely believe in direct experience of God and some Catholics have most definitely had that experience.

Thanks again for your ideas.

 

[Tacenda]

20 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I happily accept your unsolicited apology. I really figured I had said something unintelligible and didn't know what it was. I don't have good memory anymore and have little reason to have confidence when someone questions my intellect. I have feared that I am experiencing the onset of early dementia.

I probably shouldn't admit that. I know I'll get all kinds of sympathy now. You all are good people and like me. It was just a bad idea to start this thread. Like I said, I am okay...even if I am going crazy. Heh.  

Believe me Rory, the way you post you are no way showing any signs of dementia. Your posts are so well thought out and written. And I hope you know not to feel bad about starting this topic. 

I think maybe you might have an idea of why people like me had a faith crisis when finding out about certain things in the LDS church. I guess the best way to believe is to follow MF's lead and take up learning some philosophy skills. And trying to have faith, before my crisis I really didn't have to rely on faith so God might have been trying to change that by throwing me for a loop. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Obviously Catholics are ok with this prayer since it is a Catholic prayer  I want to clarify that "Every path can lead me to you" has to be understood within the context of the purpose of the prayer itself. The purpose is to find a vocation within the Catholic Church. One of the beauties of the size and history of Catholicism is that there are many many different types of spiritualities (so to speak) and so we can seek the one that God wants for us, the one that matches best the type of person God made us to be and wants us to be. So I could be a parish priest, or a friar, or a contemplative, or a family man, or a family man who works with friars to alleviate poverty, or a parish priest who spends most private free time in contemplation, or on and on. I just wanted to make sure that anyone reading this didn't think the statement "Every path" means paths outside of Catholicism. It does not.

And yes, you are completely right that this is a prayer to find God's will for one's own self in one's heart. In some ways, this might be more "Mormon" (as you are describing it) than actual Mormonism, since jobs/vocations in the Mormon church come by someone above you in authority asking you to do it, not God telling you in your heart that's what you are going to do. In discerning a vocation, the individual struggles with God to find the vocation. The individual does not wait for an authority figure to tell them what their vocation is. Of course, one would work with an authority figure -- for instance, if one feels called to be a monastic, one would have to work with the monastery, abbott, and vocations director to see if the vocation to that particular monastery/order is appropriate. But the abbott doesn't call you up and say, "we are calling you to be a monk." Instead, the individual approaches the monastery after seeking God's will on the matter.

Let's start by looking at your bolded quote from the article. You left off the most important point (though you do try to address it later). The quote in its entirety is:

"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."

Of course Catholicism believes that we can have a direct experience of God! The most obvious and blatant example of that are the contemplative monastic orders, whose entire purpose is to have that experience. But it permeates Catholicism in its entirety. The vocations prayer you quoted is another example of having an experience of God.

The key is the phrase "except in the supernatural order," which you originally truncated. We can only experience God in the supernatural order of things. Any contemplative experience is going to be supernatural. 

The writer of the article goes on to point out at the end of the quote that the pragmatist denies the distinction between natural and supernatural so the idea that God can only be experienced in the supernatural is not accepted by the pragmatist. Instead, the pragmatist collapses everything to the natural order.

And lo and behold, this is exactly what you do:

So you do not accept the Catholic understanding of experiencing God directly because, as a pragmatist, you do not accept the supernatural. Now, I'm not going to get into a debate on whether you or Catholicism is right (though obviously you know where I stand on that, ha). I just find it interesting in your attack on this article you did exactly what the article's author said you would do: deny the supernatural.

So yes, Catholics can have direct experience of God, but not as the pragmatists think. And of course the pragmatists think we are misunderstanding our experiences of God. But here's where I get to toss in some relativity and pragmatism and say that you don't get to explain my subjective experiences to me

At the risk of telling Mormons what they believe, I think from what I see you are right about Mormon philosophy. It is humanism, since the belief that God is a man necessarily elevates humans to the highest level possible. It is also materialism, since Mormons believe that spirit is just refined matter and there this is nothing supernatural, just natural that we do not understand. There are no miracles, just a lack of understanding on our part. Mormonism, like modernism (post- or otherwise) has rejected one of the oldest and most globally prevalent ideas: the great chain of being. Instead of having different types of being on different levels, Mormonism, like modernism, has collapsed it all down to matter and humanity. God is a human, angels are human, etc. If you think I have misunderstood you and Mormonism on these points, let me know.

Huston Smith, the author of The World's Religions (3 million copies sold), wrote a small but wonderful book on this topic: Forgotten Truth. He's got some street cred: chair of the philosophy department at MIT for 15 years.

Anyways, I don't really want to get into philosophically arguing who is right or wrong here. I just wanted to point out that the Catholic view is at least consistent and not as contradictory as you made it appear.

Thanks for this- a very good post right on the money!

I am not going to argue with you at all- yes you make the distinction of "natural" vs "suprnatural" and we don't.

I would cite Occam's Razor as a refutation and stick with the materialist perspective on it all.  Yes your view is justifiable- obviously historically it has been the standard view for literally thousands of years, and I think we actually have done better with other explanations ("paradigms")

In testing these things I would typically rely on epistemological issues- how would one determine a "true" supernatural experience from a "false" one- that is the kind of argument you hear literally every day here on the board- "But how do you know which experience is "true"? as opposed to something "in your mind"

It seems to me your side needs an answer for that but mine does not.  For me, since the two are theoretically indistinguishable, one cannot define the difference between the natural and supernatural,  therefore the difference is irrelevant.

So I guess it is your contention that there is adequate.... what?  "Evidence"?  to keep the distinction between the supernatural and natural and the ability to tell which is which, and then this distinction supports  then the contention that - to quote you:

Quote

We can only experience God in the supernatural order of things. Any contemplative experience is going to be supernatural

How can this proposition be justified?

To me it appears to be begging the question.  If it's "contemplative experience" it is automatically "supernatural" - perhaps by definition?  (which confirms circularity)

And how does an "contemplative" experience- apparently one within which one can experience God ? differ from an "intuitive" experience in which it is clearly stated one cannot experience God?

Thanks for pointing out distinctions which I had missed- but I am still not sure how to enable an individual to know that their vocation is "true".

I of course dispel that question by NOT having a definition of Truth- Catholics have one- apparently correspondence from the other article I linked to.  Of course pragmatists speak of justified beliefs but not "truth".

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not actually true. Yes there are formal callings but ideally we should be listening to the spirit and acting upon it to serve other people. This is constantly harped on. God primarily helps others by inspiring people. Mormon F&T meetings frequently mention someone being inspired to do something. One that sticks with me is Blake Ostler's story about feeling inspired to talk to a stranger on a park bench. Needless to say that goes against a lot of social norms and gets one well out of their comfort zone. But he did it. It turned out he prevented a suicide. So that sort of thing happens more often than we think. If anything I think the Church falters because not enough people are listening and acting.

Formal vs. informal lines of action matter a lot. While it's completely understandable why formal lines - particularly priesthood ones - get focused on a lot that's simply not all that's going on. Even absent inspiration we're supposed to be charitable and doing good deeds on our own. That central to the conception within Mormonism of being a Christian. So when it snows any my neighbor in her later 60's who has to leave early in the morning for work, we come out and shovel for her even though she's an ex-Mormon. We feel a stewardship independent of any formal line of action. (Although occasionally the Bishopric has called people)

Likewise even within formal callings you're supposed to seek God's will in how to teach. So while the formal lines give directions, they're usually quite vague. The rest is left up to your reason, heart and hopefully listening to the Holy Ghost. I can think of some examples just Sunday in my primary class.

 

While I'm a pragmatist somewhat like Mark, I tend to come from the more scientific oriented side that focuses on Peirce and realism. So I tend to look askance at James' writings on religious experience. That said, I think what we'd both criticize is the meaning of "supernatural." As used in contemporary thought it seems to owe much more to Hume than I think medieval doctrine or philosophy. Hume tends to mean it in the sense of particularism versus the regularities of the natural order (which of course in those days was seen as much more regular than today). 

I think what both Mark and I would say is that the distinction between supernatural versus natural isn't a helpful category or opposition. That's doubly so for Mormons who at least have materialist inclinations even if not necessarily an explicit commitment to materialism.

Pragmatists are fine with experiencing God directly. It's whether the notion of "supernatural" is coherent. It might be helpful to define or at least describe what you mean by supernatural. I tend to find most debates about it ultimately silly as most people just mean "stuff God or divine beings like angels or demons do." In which case if there is any opposition at all it's just that science has no conclusive evidence for such phenomena. But that's a weak sense of both natural and supernatural and not worth quibbling over.

While Mormons believe spirits are material in some way, it's not at all clear in what way. But more importantly just because spirits are material doesn't mean everything is. So a popular view in the 20th century was to separate out "intelligence" as a Cartesian mind or Thomist soul as what is uncreated. That was seen as immaterial. Likewise at least some Mormons have seemed to imply there were eternal laws applying to all universes that were reified in some way. 

I'm not saying those views were correct. I don't agree with them. But they were popular and still are to a lesser degree today. So we have to be careful with Mormon materialism. Even Joseph's view of spirits some have suggested may have much to do with the neoplatonic conception of the upper soul and lower soul. Both were material but the upper soul was considered spiritual matter. (I'm simplifying to the point of error as the details don't matter - just that things are complex)

Mormons tend to reject the idea of nature as a regular set of laws with supernatural being violation of those laws (as in Hume). But again I think the medieval view of miracles was more complex than you suggest even if not quite the same as the Mormon view. (Which is mostly just God knowing the laws and thus able to act in a high technological way) The obvious question is how on earth one could distinguish between the two. If lightning and fire consumes Elijah's sacrifice and kills the false priests, is there any way to distinguish what is or isn't a violation of natural law? Not that I can see. That seems true for all miracles. The reason for wanting a distinction tends to relate to other ontological commitments that arose in late antiquity in Christianity. But I don't think there's any phenomenological way to distinguish them since ultimately it's an ontological not phenomenal claim.

When there's no way to distinguish something pragmatists usually say it's not worth talking about. (For a difference to be a difference it must make a difference)

There's no real obvious scriptural reason to see miracles and needing some special ontological status IMO.

I'm not sure that's true. As I said Mormon materialism is much more complicated and ill defined than some take it. But I'm not sure "humanism" really describes us. Yes there are some parallels, but what counts is God who seems to have transcended humanity in at least some key ways. At least in the sense that secular humanists use the term. God simply have capabilities no human can have as a mortal. Which undermines the significance of humanism quite a bit. More significantly the epistemological implications that humanists since the Renaissance have taken from "man is the measure of all things" don't apply to Mormons. The whole point of Mormonism is in effect to awaken people to a recognition that we are much more than a secular humanist would ever concede. We are gods in embryo able to be one with God. So if you're going to raise a humanism maybe the humanism of the American transcendentalists comes closer (although I'd argue still short). But humanism along is very distortive.

 

I had not seen that when I had posted- interesting and not surprising that we hit all the same points! 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was responding to Mark's commentary on the vocation prayer. A vocation in Catholicism is going to be like a formal calling, not the informal examples of serving you give. One doesn't pray the vocation prayer to help a neighbor or to talk to someone on a bench. So while I could be certainly wrong (ha) and I'm sure there is more nuance to it than I understand, the examples you give do not match up with what Mark was describing: a prayer for vocations in Catholicism.

And thank you for the rest of your response. I'm not really into engaging in philosophical debate here (I'll leave that up to you and Mark). The purpose of my previous post was simply to clarify the Catholic position as is related to experiencing God directly and to show it was not as inconsistent as Mark was portraying it. Catholics most definitely believe in direct experience of God and some Catholics have most definitely had that experience.

Thanks again for your ideas.

 

OK but how then do you explain the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia in my first response to 3DOP?   It says we cannot experience God through intuition in criticizing Pragmatists for thinking we can- and he asserts then "evidence" which is "inferential or deductive" as a way God CAN be experienced (?)

Quote

 

... it will be remembered that the Pragmatist makes experience synonymous with reality. The consequences, therefore, which follow from the "hypothesis of God" must fall within actual or possible human experience, not of the inferential or deductivekind, but experience direct and intuitional. 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....

 

Can you say like a good Mormon - "Oh that guy was just wrong and it is not official doctrine anyway? 

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I think I understand what 3DOP is saying. I have been blogging for a few years now. Someone else called what I was proposing "New Mormonism", so I ran with that label for a while.  http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/new-mormonism/

I've heard various people use the term, especially Greg Prince. Lately, I've heard the term Neo Apologists. A lot of people tend to not like these labels, thinking they are divisive or a tip off to mainstream Mormons that it is apostate. 

Everyone will use slightly different ways to describe this. I am kind of extreme in my New Mormonism. For me, it's a belief in the lived experience of Mormonism. It's a view of scripture and historical events as metaphorical not literal. It's a more humanist version, either acknowledging the supernatural claims are dubious or simply bracketing them. Book of Mormon is not historical. First Vision was something, but likely not like the official 1838 account. I don't view exclusivity or priesthood ordinances quite the same. I follow the logic of the Liberal Christian scholars like Borg, Crossan, Enns who are devout despite not believing in many of the orthodox, literal claims. 

Others may view New Mormonism as something a little bit different, but this is what it is it to me. Labels are not always good, but they are useful at least for a first level of communication. These are pretty wild ideas to the average Mormon, so it helps to spell them out. 

 

 

Stuff like this splits the church and encourages prideful thinking that some are better or smarter or better educated than others when we are all just worms trying to become like Christ.

There are no "average Mormons" or "above average Mormons" to see themselves as "NEW".   It is divisive.

There are only folks working within a framework of orthoproaxis and temple recommend questions blundering through life and figuring out things as they go.  We are all creating our own worlds here and most of them work just fine for their occupants.  Some of us are afflicted with the philosophy gene and others are not, some follow the gene and others are sensible enough to ignore it and get on with life on good old common sense, which to me is a kind of gut-level pragmatism.

I love an old guy who will scratch his chin and say "Well, sometimes it's true and sometimes it ain't" and get on with fixing the car.  THAT is what we all should be.  This scrambling about and arguing about words is not exactly what Christ did.   In the old days it was called "sophistry".  Folks had better things to do.  Wave the hand at the nonsense, and get the laundry done.  "It's just talk".

Those are the true Wittgensteinians.

Being like us is kind of like how addictions run in families.

I don't see it as anything to be proud of. 

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was responding to Mark's commentary on the vocation prayer. A vocation in Catholicism is going to be like a formal calling, not the informal examples of serving you give. One doesn't pray the vocation prayer to help a neighbor or to talk to someone on a bench. So while I could be certainly wrong (ha) and I'm sure there is more nuance to it than I understand, the examples you give do not match up with what Mark was describing: a prayer for vocations in Catholicism.

I meant to get to the "calling" part of your remarks and never did

Callings are NOTHING LIKE "vocations" in the Catholic church and should not be confused.  It is often remarked in our church that callings are given precisely because we are NOT GOOD at some particular task and are aimed and helping us get better at that particular skill in dealing with people etc.

They are more tests of obedience than anything else.  We have no professional clergy and no one wants a professional clergy, and no one really wants to be a bishop either.

Yes it is a great honor, but that is about it.  It is virtually a 40 hour a week job dealing with difficult situations - all on top of one's own "real" occupation- which IS like a Catholic vocation.

So from your perspective, we have vocations AND callings.  Imagine your pastor having you teach a youth class, or ask you to be a deacon on top of your usual occupation when you didn't volunteer for it or indicate an interest in doing so, and being thereby expected to do it just because that is what Catholics do.

And pay your tithing

And go to the temple, 

And 3 hours of church

And clean the chapel every month while others do it in rotation, set up and take down chairs, help people move, make home visits to 5-7 families monthly, do semi-annual community service projects (pull weeds on a vacant lot, help hurricane victims)  sing in the choir, and who knows what else.

All unpaid of course. And pay tithing for the privilege of doing all this unpaid.

Think there must be something pushing one to be happy to do all that?   Like maybe sure knowledge that your choice has been a right one?

That is what it is like.   For you that might be easy, for others, it would be life-changing

So don't confuse the two- they are not alike at all.    We all have "vocations" too, which we chose much earlier in life

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

To All

I think this last point is very important- when we are asked how we know our testimonies are "true" we should tell folks "the same way you know you are called to be married to your wife/ or called to be a pastor or priest etc- even a nuclear physicist or plumber.

As Paul says we ARE a chosen generation and a royal priesthood.

ALL Mormon males are called to the priesthood should they choose to be ordained and we are sealed together with our wives in a priesthood Order- the Holy Order of the Son of God.

Like Catholics who have a "vocation" to a religous order, we wear habits- special clothing to remind us of our covenants

We are ALL priests in the Order of the Son of God, and this is our vocation

Within that Order we do as we are told by our leaders, the same as perhaps a monk or others may, some are called to work in the fields some are called to teach, make wine, or do what is needed by the community

[Five Solas]

On 2/19/2018 at 9:30 AM, 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

The pleasure, the privilege is mine, Rory.  You really do play a deeper game, at least in the sense that you're thinking about what follows--after you persuade. 

Your observation that the preponderance of LDS who leave their church become atheistic (or at least agnostic) is consistent with mine.  I've thought about that a bit, but I'm not sure "knowledge" of the "Great Apostasy" is quite right.  Let me share my own hypothesis and time permitting, tell me what you think--

When you grow up LDS, you're taught that you have a "fullness" of the gospel, with modern prophets and multiple compilations of scripture.  You're taught that your Protestant and Catholic friends (assuming you actually have some)--are limited to their Bible & their traditions.  And the Bible they rely on, you are taught, suffers from translation errors and has been purposefully stripped of plain and precious truths.  You honestly feel sorry for them.  By itself the Bible merely leads to argument and confusion.  You look around and see all different & disagreeing denominations of Christianity--and you plainly see how necessary was the work of Joseph Smith and his successors. 

As a Latter-Day Saint, you live your life to a higher standard, you obey more, you give more, you endure more, and you work harder than the rest of them.  Just take a look at those Baptists coming out of their church--wearing jeans, sweatshirts and the like.  What a lack of respect for Heavenly Father.  You honestly feel sorry for them.  You take your faith seriously, and it starts with your appearance when you enter the chapel. 

Those two ideas are deeply inculcated: Superior knowledge and superior standards.  And I submit this gets to the root of it, Rory.  When LDS lose their conviction in the rightness of their church--it doesn't elevate everyone else.  They retain their belief (or "knowledge" if you prefer) that all other churches remain lesser to the LDS Church.  Therefore if I'm LDS and I conclude the LDS Church isn't what it claims and isn't worth my time and sacrifice--the others remain even worse, and I'm certainly not going to waste more time with them. 

If the Porsche 911 didn't satisfy me, there's no point running to the Chevy dealership and asking to test drive their plastic Camaro.   

Does that make sense? 

--Erik

_________________________________________

I don't wanna be the last man standing
But wait a minute maybe I do

--Willie Nelson, 2018

 

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Just take a look at those Baptists coming out of their church--wearing jeans, sweatshirts and the like.  What a lack of respect for Heavenly Father.  You honestly feel sorry for them.  You take your faith seriously, and it starts with your appearance when you enter the chapel. 

Those two ideas are deeply inculcated: Superior knowledge and superior standards. 

Hi Erik--

I think you presentation here is an over simplification.  Most of us have blind spots in our lives caused by culture and tradition versus doctrine.  For example, growing up in a Norwegan Lutheran home, I could never get used to the two annual lutefisk feeds at home, and the one at church.  Did that make me a bad Lutheran?  Maybe.  I always felt like I was on the outside looking in.  Actually, I was.  I didn't want to get near that salty, cod fish flavored jello, smothered in butter and pepper.

Your comments about jeans in Sacrament fall into the category of culture, maybe in some locations.  Alma 32 states the following: 2 "And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel—
            3 Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart.
            4 Now, as Alma was teaching and speaking unto the people upon the hill Onidah, there came a great multitude unto him, who were those of whom we have been speaking, of whom were poor in heart, because of their poverty as to the things of the world.
            5 And they came unto Alma; and the one who was the foremost among them said unto him: Behold, what shall these my brethren do, for they are despised of all men because of their poverty, yea, and more especially by our priests; for they have cast us out of our synagogues which we have labored abundantly to build with our own hands; and they have cast us out because of our exceeding poverty; and we have no place to worship our God; and behold, what shall we do?
            6 And now when Alma heard this, he turned him about, his face immediately towards him, and he beheld with great joy; for he beheld that their afflictions had truly humbled them, and that they were in a preparation to hear the word.
            7 Therefore he did say no more to the other multitude; but he stretched forth his hand, and cried unto those whom he beheld, who were truly penitent, and said unto them:
            8 I behold that ye are lowly in heart; and if so, blessed are ye."

People are not discouraged to attend because of their clothing.  People will often ask "What do people wear."  We tell them most people are in their Sunday clothes (Maybe some of your parishioners wear Sunday clothes,) but some wear jeans, etc.  Come as you are.  We do, after awhile, tend to gravitate toward clothing that is less casual over time out of feelings of reverence and respect.  That is true in our church, as in others (Maybe even yours Erik.)

It's interesting to me how you say the Mormons feel superior to others a view them condescendingly.  How do I say this kindly?  It seems almost laughable to hear that coming from you, my good friend.

The Mormons on this discussion board are constantly on the defense from criticisms by you "Superior knowledge and superior standards..." and your ilk.  It's on all the controversial topics.  Polygamy.  Joseph Smith sending men on missions to steal their wives (as Rory said above,) believing in a different Christ, etc.  Rarely is there an acknowledgement that both you and we love God and our fellow man, and there are issues of faith that unite us.  If I may be honest, it feels like pot shots and controversy are what drive you.  I don't believe the condescencion is coming from our side.  Do you?  If it comes up, we tell you what we believe and why we believe it.  Rather than accept that, as we accept you, you try to talk us out of our belief.  Why not say "I believe this, and here is why."  And when we say "I believe this, and here is why," why not accept our statement of faith as we do yours?  

I enjoy Mserere Nobis comments on this thread and his not wanting to get down in the weeds.  It's great to hear what he believes.  In all our discussions, I don't believe I have ever criticized your faith or history.  And we've had some pretty good conversations.  But this constant harangue on our historical controversies is tiring.  Judge people by their fruits and testimony whether or not they are Christian.  Then enjoy more time fellowshipping.  No offense intended, Erik.  I know we're all just having fun, right?

Meerkat

Edited February 25, 2018 by Meerkat