hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You subscribe to positivism positivism is dead. Your religion is interfering with our discussion. Your central assumption unfounded is that fact do have something to do with religion. You say so over and over again. The problem is that is unfounded assumption. The Assumption itself has no evidence for it. And that is why positivism is dead. It says that all true statements must have evidence. But that statement itself has no evidence. It is like a religious Dogma, accepted on faith. This focus on positivism I don't think is fruitful. You mentioned earlier that positivism works very well for the hard sciences, so its not dead in those applications, even if its dead philosophically. If my assumption that facts do have something to do with religion is unfounded, please explain why? From my perspective when religious claims enter into the objective world, then those claims can be evaluated using scholarly tools. Questions about history, nature, the universe, etc. can all be evaluated using data and the scientific method. Are you saying a religious claim about the age of the earth can't be evaluated using science?
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Here is a link to Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, in which all of this is made crystal clear. http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/Religion-Online.org Books/Barbour, Ian - Myths, Models and Paradigms-A comparative Stu.pdf Best, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Thanks I'll check this out, appreciate the link. It will take me some time to digest I'm sure.
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 11 hours ago, Meerkat said: Truth is so vast, each of us must decide which vein to spend our lives mining because our time is limited. Your vein appears to be history. Your objective seems to be to convince us that a fully examined history should matter more than anything else. I know history is important. Since my time is limited and I believe an accurate enough history will be revealed in due time, I can spend my time seeking personal revelation, loving my neighbor and working on family history. I'm not saying you should do this. Just allow that every child of God is entitled to their own Gospel passion that may be different from yours. If you want to dig out history, then dig. Don't expect others to do the heavy lifting for you. They have work enough of their own to do. What SHOULD matter depends on what each person decides should matter-- to them, imo. I agree that truth is vast, yes. My objective is to understand what MFB is saying. History is important, but its not the most important thing by any means. I'm just trying to get some clarity on what kinds of questions can be answered with the right kind of tools. When you say that you believe an accurate enough history will be revealed in due time, I think that is a common assumption for religious people to take. Its an assumption that whatever narratives are expressed by their church of choice, will eventually be vindicated by scholarship as more information is discovered over time. This is a position of faith, but its not based on an evaluation of past history with respect to the track records of religions in general or in specific. Of course I respect all different kinds of people who are inclined to whatever talents and interests they have, I don't know how anyone would have received an impression otherwise. And I'm not sure what this "don't expect others to do the heavy lifting for" me comes from. That's the furthest thing from an accurate statement that you've made, I do a ton of research and don't ever ask others to do it for me, quite the opposite.
mfbukowski Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: This focus on positivism I don't think is fruitful. You mentioned earlier that positivism works very well for the hard sciences, so its not dead in those applications, even if its dead philosophically. If my assumption that facts do have something to do with religion is unfounded, please explain why? From my perspective when religious claims enter into the objective world, then those claims can be evaluated using scholarly tools. Questions about history, nature, the universe, etc. can all be evaluated using data and the scientific method. Are you saying a religious claim about the age of the earth can't be evaluated using science? Any claims about the age of the earth "should" (and must logically ) be based on science. Claims about the benefits of a religious belief "should" (and must logically) be based on Alma 32- a belief based on faith which is "sweet" and grows "into a tree bearing fruit in one's life Evaluating a religious claim on science is a logical category mistake. This is the mistake of logical positivism Evaluating a scientific claim based on religion is a category mistake Truth is contextual and based on the truth standards of the audience. These ideas are based on the deflationary theory of truth, which is widely accepted by academic philosophers and many scientists who actually understand it and are not religiously committed to positivism We have been over this a hundred times. Read about the deflationary theory and how it justifies my position and get back to me with relevant comments and not re-assertions of positivisim. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ If you have questions about the article, that is relevant so go ahead and ask The bottom line here is that Alma 32 and Moroni 10 are fully justified ways of determining "truth" according to this well-supported and incidentally also secular, notion of truth If we teach this kind of truth- we could have secularists joining us in droves- and yet we have LDS scriptures backing up the deflationary theory of truth. THAT is why I am here. Paul taught the "unknown god" to secularists by using concepts they understood- philosophy. There is no reason we cannot do the same except for the wide spread view that such ideas are not "Mormon"- which ideas are pure bunk If you believe Alma 32 and Moroni 10 and 1 James- you believe in deflationism. It is that simple
mfbukowski Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I agree that truth is vast, yes. My objective is to understand what MFB is saying. History is important, but its not the most important thing by any means. I'm just trying to get some clarity on what kinds of questions can be answered with the right kind of tools. When you say that you believe an accurate enough history will be revealed in due time, I think that is a common assumption for religious people to take. Its an assumption that whatever narratives are expressed by their church of choice, will eventually be vindicated by scholarship as more information is discovered over time. This is a position of faith, but its not based on an evaluation of past history with respect to the track records of religions in general or in specific. Of course I respect all different kinds of people who are inclined to whatever talents and interests they have, I don't know how anyone would have received an impression otherwise. And I'm not sure what this "don't expect others to do the heavy lifting for" me comes from. That's the furthest thing from an accurate statement that you've made, I do a ton of research and don't ever ask others to do it for me, quite the opposite. What is called "history" is important to you because you BELIEVE that what is called "history" actually represents "what really happened" It does not, except in the simplest possible way- it does not describe what people were thinking, their reasoning or motivations. Presentism is constantly there. One cannot "go back in time" impartially. So it is your BELIEF that history is important that MAKES it important. Thought experiment: If I told you that Christ and the atonement actually existed on another planet- would history be important? According to LDS beliefs that is true for all other planets- Christ HERE atoned for all sins on all worlds! But it was an infinite atonement for all mankind- on all planets and all worlds. There is your history. Unfortunately it cannot be proven. It actually happened but cannot be proven So now what is the difference here? None.
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Any claims about the age of the earth "should" (and must logically ) be based on science. Claims about the benefits of a religious belief "should" (and must logically) be based on Alma 32- a belief based on faith which is "sweet" and grows "into a tree bearing fruit in one's life Evaluating a religious claim on science is a logical category mistake. This is the mistake of logical positivism Evaluating a scientific claim based on religion is a category mistake I agree there are categories, absolutely. I think we have different definitions of categories based on this thread and others previous. Let me give a few more examples of religious claims that can be evaluated using scholarship, and not just faith. Whether Moroni was a living human being that descended from Israelites who migrated from Jerusalem in 600 B.C.E. can be evaluated using the tools of historians, anthropologists, linguists, archaeologists, etc. Whether humans can accurately predict the future is a religious claim that can be tested and evaluated. Whether humans can accurately use divining rods to find water has been tested. Whether humans can accurately translate languages using seer stones or find hidden treasures can be evaluated using science. Whether prayers statistically heal people has been evaluated using science. These are all things in the religious world that cross into the sciences. So while I agree there are categories, I disagree where to draw that line, and many things clearly cross over the boundary to some extent. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Truth is contextual and based on the truth standards of the audience. These ideas are based on the deflationary theory of truth, which is widely accepted by academic philosophers and many scientists who actually understand it and are not religiously committed to positivism We have been over this a hundred times. Read about the deflationary theory and how it justifies my position and get back to me with relevant comments and not re-assertions of positivisim. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ If you have questions about the article, that is relevant so go ahead and ask I'm willing to read another philosophical article(I think I've read this one a couple times now) if you will answer my very straight forward questions that I have asked multiple times now. There is a difference between history and fiction and I believe you've acknowledge that (I think at least, but not 100% sure), and since this difference matters to most Mormons, please explain why you see things differently and what your purpose is with respect to educating me and others on this topic. Please explain it the best you can without getting into philosophical jargon. Why is my orientation that history and fiction are different something that seems to make you cringe. Its the dominant view in Mormonism, what is it that bothers you about that view. 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The bottom line here is that Alma 32 and Moroni 10 are fully justified ways of determining "truth" according to this well-supported and incidentally also secular, notion of truth If we teach this kind of truth- we could have secularists joining us in droves- and yet we have LDS scriptures backing up the deflationary theory of truth. THAT is why I am here. Paul taught the "unknown god" to secularists by using concepts they understood- philosophy. There is no reason we cannot do the same except for the wide spread view that such ideas are not "Mormon"- which ideas are pure bunk If you believe Alma 32 and Moroni 10 and 1 James- you believe in deflationism. It is that simple I like Alma 32, but I don't think the principles there directly lead people to Mormonism. If you think about it, those principles will bring a person to Scientology or Jehovah's Witnesses just as easily as to Mormonism, there is not exclusivity in the planting a seed and letting it grow method. Its really just a way of saying that if something works for you and brings goodness to your life you should continue to do that thing. Its also not a completely accurate method for evaluation because of confirmation bias and other logical flaws we humans have developed. It works for the most part, but its as flawed as the people using this method are flawed. Rational thinking and critical thinking are important tools that should be used as well. The closer we can get to operating by truth and goodness, the better off we'll be.
Meerkat Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: This is a position of faith, but its not based on an evaluation of past history with respect to the track records of religions in general or in specific. Frankly, Scarlet... You either don't read, consider or care about understanding my answers to your questions. I've invested about as much life energy as I care to. If you want answers, go back to my former posts you have ignored, or Mfbukowski's generous offerings. 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: And I'm not sure what this "don't expect others to do the heavy lifting for" me comes from. That's the furthest thing from an accurate statement that you've made, I do a ton of research and don't ever ask others to do it for me, quite the opposite. In my opinion, you don't understand what a testimony is, or the fact that a testimony IS based on evidence that can be duplicated, as I and others explained in earlier comments that you ignored. Yes, it is subjective. But millions have put it to the test with similar results. I believe the reason you completely miss the point again and again is that, despite your "ton of research," it appears to result in what Paul called "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." in 2 Tim 3:7. And why? Because, your heavy lifting" is from a position of skepticism. Paul also said "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14 Mfbukowski said: "The question AT FIRST is not what the ultimate "answer" is but HOW to GET there. It is a question of methodology to FIND the truth. Now I have said it at least four times. " As for me, I refer you to all old posts. The answers are there. Apply some of your heavy lifting to those comments. I know what and why I believe. That's what I've been trying to share with you, responding to your questions. Nice as you seem to be, I do wonder if you actually care about answers to your repeated questions on this topic, no offense intended. Edited August 23, 2018 by Meerkat 1
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: What is called "history" is important to you because you BELIEVE that what is called "history" actually represents "what really happened" It does not, except in the simplest possible way- it does not describe what people were thinking, their reasoning or motivations. Presentism is constantly there. One cannot "go back in time" impartially. I've never said this. I know professional historians have their limits and that interpretations of source materials vary widely across a spectrum. That said, there are methods in place for responsible historical construction in the scholarly world, and that is the best we can do at this point and these tools are incrementally better than the tools used to evaluate history by prior generations. I don't believe we can ever get a 100% accurate view of history in the past. We certain get closer today with our abilities to record events using video and audio equipment, but even then the placement of the camera and microphone can have a large impact on how people interpret events. As well as implicit bias, and all kinds of other things. 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: If I told you that Christ and the atonement actually existed on another planet- would history be important? According to LDS beliefs that is true for all other planets- Christ HERE atoned for all sins on all worlds! But it was an infinite atonement for all mankind- on all planets and all worlds. There is your history. Unfortunately it cannot be proven. It actually happened but cannot be proven So now what is the difference here? Would it be important? Sure, if the religious theology around the atonement were true in a literal sense. I think it is all a metaphorical construction(a powerfully constructed one at that), but if it were literal like fundamentalist Christians assert, then I think it would certainly be very important to know about. I don't think we can prove the atonement using the tools of history. I believe that would fit into the category of a faith claim, and not a claim that can be evaluated using scholarship.
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 10 minutes ago, Meerkat said: In my opinion, you don't understand what a testimony is, or the fact that a testimony IS based on evidence that can be duplicated, as I and others explained in earlier comments that you ignored. Yes, it is subjective. But millions have put it to the test with similar results. I'm not ignoring anything, and I'd appreciate it if you'd quit being rude in your replies to me by accusing me of things. Lets keep it civil. I know very well what a testimony is, I was as orthodox a believer as you can get only a few years ago. But this isn't answering the point I made to you. These millions all have uniquely different experiences, and the assumption that all these uniquely subjective individual experiences constitute evidence that is on the level of scientific evidence is the flaw in your argument. Besides, it shouldn't matter if its millions or thousands or one person. The numbers shouldn't matter according to Mormon theology. 15 minutes ago, Meerkat said: I believe the reason you completely miss the point again and again is that, despite your "ton of research," it appears to result in what Paul called "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." in 2 Tim 3:7. And why? Because, your heavy lifting" is from a position of skepticism. Paul also said "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14 Would you say you've also studied things in your life? How do we know that it isn't you who is "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." or you that is the "natural man". Why are you trying to dismiss me. Focus on the points and produce counter points, don't make this personal. 18 minutes ago, Meerkat said: "The question AT FIRST is not what the ultimate "answer" is but HOW to GET there. It is a question of methodology to FIND the truth. Now I have said it at least four times. " This sentence is a good illustration of an incoherent sentence that makes absolutely no sense to me. Explain yourself, or lets get MFB to explain himself. Find what truth? I asked some very simple questions (too simple according to MFB as I was accused of setting up false dichotomies), to try and get a simple answer. Just be clear in your communication. What truth am I suppose to find that is eluding me so much? Is this truth saying that we should just ignore scholarly evidence whenever it contradicts what church leaders make claims about? That's what I call an appeal to authority, not an appeal to truth. What could this mysterious truth be? I'd really like to know how it works, because I honestly do value truth a lot. Its why I no longer believe that Mormonism has exclusive authority from God, precisely because I value truth so much.
Meerkat Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Why is my orientation that history and fiction are different something that seems to make you cringe. The way I read Mark's comments, he agreed with you on that as did I as would any reasonable person. I don't know why you can't take yes for an answer on that. This constant stirring the pot is making me dizzy. HFT, is there a place for faith in your theology? Edited August 24, 2018 by Meerkat I eliminated "Argggh!!!" to minimize my rudeness. HFT had a point.
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Meerkat said: Argggh!!! The way I read Mark's comments, he agreed with you on that as did I as would any reasonable person. I don't know why you can't take yes for an answer on that. This constant stirring the pot is making me dizzy. HFT, is there a place for faith in your theology? Mark has confused me with his replies. If he agrees that history and fiction are substantively different and that most Mormons find that difference important, then why is he constantly critiquing when I point this very clear fact out. What is wrong with evaluating historical claims using the tools of professional history? Maybe you can answer that question for me from your perspective.
Meerkat Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm not ignoring anything, and I'd appreciate it if you'd quit being rude in your replies to me by accusing me of things. Lets keep it civil. Fair enough. When people respond to your questions, do you try to understand what they are saying? 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: the assumption that all these uniquely subjective individual experiences constitute evidence that is on the level of scientific evidence is the flaw in your argument. I don't care whether it is on the scientific level. I don't have an argument. I'm thoroughly happy with what I've got. I have proved it to MY satisfaction many different ways. This is how I received my testimony. If it works for you, great. If not, God bless you. I'm not trying to twist your arm. 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Is this truth saying that we should just ignore scholarly evidence whenever it contradicts what church leaders make claims about? See prior answer. I'm not trying to make a defense for any church leaders or any policies or anything that you would want to disagree with. I'm explaining how my testimony came about and the happy life I enjoy. I am sharing with you exactly what I would share with anyone else. To me, the evidence is overwhelming. And as I described regarding praying about geography for my special circumstance, God can answer geography questions when He wants to. From that experience, I have learned that signs follow those who believe. That constitutes further evidence for me. But if you're interested in history and scientific evidence, I'm afraid you'll need to research that for yourself. It's important, and I've made accomodations in my faith so I can focus on things more important to me. 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: How do we know that it isn't you who is "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." or you that is the "natural man". Why are you trying to dismiss me. Focus on the points and produce counter points, don't make this personal. Because I am a true believer. Again, I say to you I know what I believe and why I believe it. I have no complaints about my leaders or their or my mistakes of the past. I have the ample fruits of a happy life. I've read the anti stuff and it rings hollow to me compared to my Life, which I walk around in every day. I wouldn't trade it. You asked: "What is wrong with evaluating historical claims using the tools of professional history? Maybe you can answer that question for me from your perspective." Nothing is wrong with that, if that's most meaningful to you. I enjoy Church history. I believe what I believe. I wait for further information on those few things that remain questionable or unsettling to me. And overall, they are so minor as to have no adverse impact on my faith. You are the one who is asking the questions, and appears unsettled by my answers. I'm just reporting on my life, not debating or looking for answers. Just saying how my mind works. I love my religion. It makes me happy. I hope it makes you happy too. Edited August 24, 2018 by Meerkat 1
hope_for_things Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, Meerkat said: Fair enough. When people respond to your questions, do you try to understand what they are saying? Passive aggressive much? Geez.... 3 minutes ago, Meerkat said: I don't care whether it is on the scientific level. I have proved it to MY satisfaction many different ways. This is how I received my testimony. If it works for you, great. If not, God bless you. I'm not trying to twist your arm. Great, no worries then, I have no problem with people having a testimony and doing what works for them. I’m very respectful of that. This all started because I was having a pleasant exchange with Kevin about subjective religious experiences and he make some points that he viewed certain experiences as more than just subjective and I asked follow up questions. That was the basis behind MFB and you now, telling me how I have everything wrong on this topic. I like clarity when it comes to describing these things because the default mode for believers seems to be conflating science and religion, and I think there are clear categorical differences. 8 minutes ago, Meerkat said: See prior answer. I'm not trying to make a defense for any church leaders or any policies or anything that you would want to disagree with. I'm explaining how my testimony came about and the happy life I enjoy. I am sharing with you exactly what I would share with anyone else. To me, the evidence is overwhelming. And as I described regarding praying about geography for my special circumstance, God can answer geography questions when He wants to. From that experience, I have learned that signs follow those who believe. That constitutes further evidence for me. But if you're interested in history and scientific evidence, I'm afraid you'll need to research that for yourself. It's important, and I've made accomodations in my faith so I can focus on things more important to me. Ok, but just to be clear, the evidence that you find overwhelming is not objective scholarly evidence. It’s subjective faith based evidence. So when religions make claims that cross into the sciences like the claim of an ancient civilization of Hebrews living on the American continent, then that claim can be evaluated using scholarly tools. And those tools tell us that this claim isn’t true, overwhelmingly. As long as you understand that your faith about this claim isn’t scholarly and doesn’t belong in the world of scholarship, then we are fine. Keep it in the world of faith and I’m fine. Can God answer a geography question if he wants is another faith claim that can be evaluated using scholarly tools. Setup a test, get people to ask God to reveal geographic information to them, and show the evidence to support that claim. There have been a lot of studies to test the claims of those who profess to have supernatural abilities, religious and otherwise. None of them have successfully demonstrated a supernatural ability to date. 15 minutes ago, Meerkat said: Because I am a true believer. Again, I say to you I know what I believe and why I believe it. I have no complaints about my leaders or their or my mistakes of the past. I have the ample fruits of a happy life. I've read the anti stuff and it rings hollow to me compared to my Life, which I walk around in every day. I wouldn't trade it. I could care less about point and counter point because these eyes, ears and life are wonderful to me. Sounds good to me, I’m happy it works for you. It works for a whole lot of people I care about, it worked for me for many years. No problems here. BTW, I don’t delve in “anti” stuff, I have a distaste for that kind of negativity. I like middle of the road scholars that are respectful and critical thinkers, who don’t rely on dogma and who don’t overly emphasize the positive or the negative. That’s my orientation these days and it works well for me.
Meerkat Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: What truth am I suppose to find that is eluding me so much? Read what's been written on this thread and you should see. It's pretty clear to me what most everyone is saying. But I don't think I could make it any clearer. Actually, you may be right. And that's okay with me. 1
hope_for_things Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, Meerkat said: Read what's been written on this thread and you should see. It's pretty clear to me what most everyone is saying. But I don't think I could make it any clearer. Actually, you may be right. And that's okay with me. Read the thread again earlier, and it’s still not clear to me. Can’t you just summarize in your own words for me?
Meerkat Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: This all started because I was having a pleasant exchange with Kevin about subjective religious experiences and he make some points that he viewed certain experiences as more than just subjective and I asked follow up questions. That was the basis behind MFB and you now, telling me how I have everything wrong on this topic Okay. My bad. It just feels like you're a little strident when it comes to me enjoying my testimony in peace. You encourage me to get my historical ducks in a row, but I feel no need or desire to do so because my life speaks for itself. I'm not challenged by Church history, although I understand why some are. 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: And those tools tell us that this claim isn’t true, overwhelmingly. As long as you understand that your faith about this claim isn’t scholarly and doesn’t belong in the world of scholarship, then we are fine. Keep it in the world of faith and I’m fine. I disagree with you. There are scholars on both sides of that debate. I don't know the answer. But I believe it will be revealed in due time. My faith is secure due to personal revelation. Life is too short for me to go down that blind alley, or the others you seem to enjoy. 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Can God answer a geography question if he wants is another faith claim that can be evaluated using scholarly tools. Setup a test, get people to ask God to reveal geographic information to them, and show the evidence to support that claim. You didn't read my geography comment about finding my highschool friend, did you. You are talking about sign seeking rather than faith, I believe. In the mean time, I enjoy a personal relationship with God that is very satisfying. 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I like middle of the road scholars that are respectful and critical thinkers, who don’t rely on dogma and who don’t overly emphasize the positive or the negative. That’s my orientation these days and it works well for me. You know, Hope for Things, that sounds very good to me also. Some of the historical problems could use a little light shined on them. I appreciate the fair approach you describe. You are talking about what could be a good thing. At my age, I have many other good things to focus on that strengthen my faith. I try to focus on those. If I've been too hard on you, maybe it's self-defense. But actually, I feel satisfied with how I deal with those questions. I hope you do also, and that you are enjoying a satisfying spiritual life in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think I understand you a little better now. 🙄 Edited August 24, 2018 by Meerkat 1
mfbukowski Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 7 hours ago, Meerkat said: Frankly, Scarlet... You either don't read, consider or care about understanding my answers to your questions. I've invested about as much life energy as I care to. If you want answers, go back to my former posts you have ignored, or Mfbukowski's generous offerings. In my opinion, you don't understand what a testimony is, or the fact that a testimony IS based on evidence that can be duplicated, as I and others explained in earlier comments that you ignored. Yes, it is subjective. But millions have put it to the test with similar results. I believe the reason you completely miss the point again and again is that, despite your "ton of research," it appears to result in what Paul called "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." in 2 Tim 3:7. And why? Because, your heavy lifting" is from a position of skepticism. Paul also said "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14 Mfbukowski said: "The question AT FIRST is not what the ultimate "answer" is but HOW to GET there. It is a question of methodology to FIND the truth. Now I have said it at least four times. " As for me, I refer you to all old posts. The answers are there. Apply some of your heavy lifting to those comments. I know what and why I believe. That's what I've been trying to share with you, responding to your questions. Nice as you seem to be, I do wonder if you actually care about answers to your repeated questions on this topic, no offense intended. Thanks. That's exactly what I'm thinking too.
mfbukowski Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 9 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm not ignoring anything, and I'd appreciate it if you'd quit being rude in your replies to me by accusing me of things. Lets keep it civil. I know very well what a testimony is, I was as orthodox a believer as you can get only a few years ago. But this isn't answering the point I made to you. These millions all have uniquely different experiences, and the assumption that all these uniquely subjective individual experiences constitute evidence that is on the level of scientific evidence is the flaw in your argument. Besides, it shouldn't matter if its millions or thousands or one person. The numbers shouldn't matter according to Mormon theology. Would you say you've also studied things in your life? How do we know that it isn't you who is "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." or you that is the "natural man". Why are you trying to dismiss me. Focus on the points and produce counter points, don't make this personal. This sentence is a good illustration of an incoherent sentence that makes absolutely no sense to me. Explain yourself, or lets get MFB to explain himself. Find what truth? I asked some very simple questions (too simple according to MFB as I was accused of setting up false dichotomies), to try and get a simple answer. Just be clear in your communication. What truth am I suppose to find that is eluding me so much? Is this truth saying that we should just ignore scholarly evidence whenever it contradicts what church leaders make claims about? That's what I call an appeal to authority, not an appeal to truth. What could this mysterious truth be? I'd really like to know how it works, because I honestly do value truth a lot. Its why I no longer believe that Mormonism has exclusive authority from God, precisely because I value truth so much. That's ok. Sorry this is not working. Good luck to you.
hope_for_things Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: That's ok. Sorry this is not working. Good luck to you. I think what we need to do a better job of in the future, myself included in this, is building on the common things we agree on. If you go back and read through things in this thread, and I've done this again (I must be a glutton or something), there are plenty of things we have some agreement on. Like that we should establish categories for science and faith and use different tools for evaluating those things. Or when I used what you've explained to me about things not being out there in the universe to critique what Kevin was expressing. There are common ideas we should be able to do a better job of building on, and then carefully expanding out into the things we have a different opinion on, instead of diving directly into the difference full steam ahead. Thats one thing I'm taking away from this exchange, and I'll try to do better next time on that regard. 1
Meerkat Posted August 25, 2018 Posted August 25, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, hope_for_things said: There are common ideas we should be able to do a better job of building on, HFT, that's one thing I would like to agree with you on. I hope it is possible. This morning, I listened to Bro. Pinegar's talk at Fair Mormon titled 'How to help LDS deal with criticisms against the Church.' Discussing history, he said "An historical event is only as good as the memory of the recorder. 'Someone read it in such and such a diary.' We don't know when that diary came out. We din't know the perception of that person, what their experiences have been, all they were feeling that day, what their attitudes were, what their values were. (We didn't know how long after the event, the record was made, etc.) History is sometimes very questionable. Bro. Pinegar taught with Benton Davis, assistant Church historian, at BYU Hawaii in 2006. He asked, " Bro. Benton, how do you handle all those questions about the history of the Church and all those problems?" "He looked at me with a twinkle in his eye and said "Ed, my testimony is in the Lord Jesus Christ and the Restored Gospel, and His prophets. Not in the frailty of others memory of the history of the Church." HFT, that resonates with me. Does it with you? Bro. Pinegar told of a friend he had helped join the Church who approached him. "Why didn't you tell me about Mountain Meadow Massacre?" Bro. Pinegar said "I'm sorry. That was a blotch on the history, and we don't have all the facts. But this is how it apparently seemed to be. We don't know everything." His friend said "I wish I'd have known that." Bro. Pinegar asked "Did I tell you about Haun's Mill Massacre? Did I tell you about the rape and pillage around the environs of Nauvoo in Brigham Young's time, where Brigham said "We've got to get out of here or we'll all be destroyed?" "No," he said. " Why didn't you tell me about those things?" Bro. Pinegar's response was "Right." "I taught you the Book of Mormon and the Word of God. I taught you to love the Lord God, our Father and His Son Jesus Christ, and his Gospel.The discussion was over. He had had a testimony like few others. But when the question comes up it shocks people." HFT, when two of my RM, Temple married sons cornered me, they complained I didn't teach them about polygamy, priesthood issues, horses in the Book of Mormon. It has all been available since we joined the Church. I read it, was unsettled and even sickened by some of it. I didn't think of presenting it to my family. But it's easily available to anyone who wants it. Maybe I should have somehow addressed it, with encouragement to keep their spiritual reservoirs full because when we start down that critical road, the end of it is usually apostasy. They both left the Church and divorced their wives. I wish I'd had the presence of mind to say then, "Right." "I taught you the Book of Mormon and the Word of God. I taught you to love the Lord God, our Father and His Son Jesus Christ, and his Gospel. I taught you to love thy neighbor." The way to testimony is through the Spirit. That's where my testimony is and it comes from the Holy Ghost! Nothing anybody can say can change that for me. It boils down to each person needing to put in the time reading the scriptures and praying to know what is true, then live the life. There's just no substitute for that. My problem was trying to answer them according to their frames of skeptical reference. They just went from one negative item to the next, and there was no resolving anything. The only way, for me, is through focusing on things spiritual and try to leave the controversial to others. And my life is reasonably happy. Edited August 25, 2018 by Meerkat 4
Eek! Posted August 26, 2018 Posted August 26, 2018 On 8/15/2018 at 7:26 AM, Stargazer said: How do those of other faiths gain their testimonies? I think my faith could charitably be described as "other", so I'll take a shot at it. If you mean a "testimony" in the LDS sense of declaring "I know that xyz is true", then that's not my focus. I am open to the probability that any and all of my beliefs are not the highest level of truth on any given subject. In theory at least this leaves all of my doors open to greater light and knowledge, however it may present itself. One of my beliefs is that all my choices are between heaven and something else. I believe these choices are made by the thoughts I choose to think. My actions and/or my feelings are the effect, and my thoughts are the cause. And as soon as it becomes apparent that I have chosen "something else", it is my duty to choose again. Another one of my beliefs is, that God can speak to us from anywhere and at any time. Imo He is not limited to only speaking through religious channels. For instance, here's one that came over the radio instead of over the pulpit: "Yes there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on." Which is a much more eloquent way of saying what I was trying to say in the preceding paragraph (regardless of whether Robert Plant understood those words the same way I do when we wrote them). So instead of focusing on my "testimony", i.e. beliefs which I am willing to declare that I know to be true, I'm far more interested in listening for what God might have to say, however He might choose to say it. I hear His voice through posts on this board more often than in most places, so this is one of the few places I visit when I have a little free time. 2
hope_for_things Posted August 26, 2018 Posted August 26, 2018 On 8/25/2018 at 1:45 AM, Meerkat said: HFT, that's one thing I would like to agree with you on. I hope it is possible. This morning, I listened to Bro. Pinegar's talk at Fair Mormon titled 'How to help LDS deal with criticisms against the Church.' Discussing history, he said "An historical event is only as good as the memory of the recorder. 'Someone read it in such and such a diary.' We don't know when that diary came out. We din't know the perception of that person, what their experiences have been, all they were feeling that day, what their attitudes were, what their values were. (We didn't know how long after the event, the record was made, etc.) History is sometimes very questionable. Bro. Pinegar taught with Benton Davis, assistant Church historian, at BYU Hawaii in 2006. He asked, " Bro. Benton, how do you handle all those questions about the history of the Church and all those problems?" "He looked at me with a twinkle in his eye and said "Ed, my testimony is in the Lord Jesus Christ and the Restored Gospel, and His prophets. Not in the frailty of others memory of the history of the Church." HFT, that resonates with me. Does it with you? Meerkat, Thanks for sharing, I really loved Ed Pinegar back in my orthodox days, took a class from him at the Institute at UVSC and I had a couple of his tapes when I served as a missionary, very inspiring and energetic guy. The point about history is a good one, and its one that actually cuts against narrative heritage based histories of all flavors. The narratives we have in Mormonism that paint a pretty picture about the origins of the church are essentially just crafted post hoc after the events to paint an inspirational picture for the members. They aren’t about acurate history, they are stories developed over time by believers. All groups do this across the world. We have our inspirational USA foundational narratives as do other cultures and religions. So when Pinegar says we should be careful about history because memory isn’t a recorder, this is true and it actually tells us that we should be skeptical of the foundational historical narratives of Mormonism and Christianity. Because detailed critical scholarship shows just how complicated those narratives are. For your kids, I’m sorry to hear about what sounds like a very sad event for you and for their individual families. I can only imagine how hard that must have been and continues to be. It sounds like you really wish you could have been more helpful during their time of need. As someone who’s had the faith deconstruction and who interacts with many people that also are going through this, I don’t consider myself an expert my any means, but I do have some thoughts. I wouldn’t say that the advice from Pinegar’s talk would have been helpful in response to your kids. From my experience the best advice and most helpful thing is to acknowledge all the messy history and the problems that are real and that they are grappling with. The sad reality is there aren’t any faithful answers that satisfy someone really learning about these things. But letting the people wrestling with learning about these issues know that you love them, that the problems are real and that Mormonism doesn’t have answers to the challenges they’ve uncovered in the flawed mythical history that correlated Mormonism crafted for them. This is the best response in my opinion. What your kids eventually realize, and I think this is what all of us who’ve really deconstructed religion realize at some point is that these flaws aren’t unique to the Mormon enterprise. All traditions and religions and tribes have highly crafted and exaggerated narratives. Those are what has survived the test of time. The more complex history of flawed characters doing mundane human stuff and messing up majorly doesn’t seem to last as long as the inspirational tales of conquering our problems with divine intervention in tow. The truth that they can eventually realize is that Mormonism is both true and false at the same time. It’s true in the sense that it is a way of living that has value and has inspired many to be better people in many ways. It’s false in the sense that it doesn’t work for others and has hurt many people along the way. Mormonism is both true and false simultaneously. If I were to ever write a book on Mormonism I’ve thought that something like this might be a good title. How its both true and false at the same time. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thanks
Meerkat Posted August 27, 2018 Posted August 27, 2018 13 hours ago, hope_for_things said: From my experience the best advice and most helpful thing is to acknowledge all the messy history and the problems that are real and that they are grappling with. Good advice. It's a lesson learned from all this. We do let them know we love them. We each need to find what makes us happy on our own. They know our religious views from a lifetime of exposure to us. We are done with the overt teaching. They need to connect the dots in their own lives. Regarding the rest of your advice, my take is that too much of it comes from a place of deconstructed faith. It doesn't encourage finding a way back to hope or faith, but rather accept that values and religious history are feel good exercises meant to dupe people into living lives of happiness. Your view and mine remain dramatically different. Are there flaws in history? Since those who are recording it are human beings, yes. Your statement below is inaccurate, based on my decades of experiences. What you call reality, that there are no faithful answers, is itself a deception.: 13 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The sad reality is there aren’t any faithful answers that satisfy someone really learning about these things I know beyond a doubt that God is a rewarder of all those who diligently seek Him. I live it every day. It takes a certain kind of effort that has been described many times in this thread that some people are not ready or willing to put to the test. God will force no person to conversion. Neither will God be mocked. Someday, I pray someone comes into my two boys lives who can connect with them. For now, it isn't me. Again, I leave you with these profound words from Alma 32 that I have seen in action and found true: "38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out. 39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof. 40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life." HFT, I truly do not mean that as an insult to your position. There is a way to know, and that is to apply the message to one's life.. Thanks for your words of concern for our boys and all effected. I wish you well on your quest for truth and meaning. 1
hope_for_things Posted August 27, 2018 Posted August 27, 2018 8 hours ago, Meerkat said: Regarding the rest of your advice, my take is that too much of it comes from a place of deconstructed faith. It doesn't encourage finding a way back to hope or faith, but rather accept that values and religious history are feel good exercises meant to dupe people into living lives of happiness. Your view and mine remain dramatically different. Are there flaws in history? Since those who are recording it are human beings, yes. Your statement below is inaccurate, based on my decades of experiences. What you call reality, that there are no faithful answers, is itself a deception.: 22 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The sad reality is there aren’t any faithful answers that satisfy someone really learning about these things I think you're accurate that I'm not attempting to "encourage" finding a way back to hope & faith, at least in the same flavor as before. Now personally, even though I'm not a theist, I still feel like I practice the principles of hope and faith, but these are manifest differently. Its not hope in an omniscient deity or in an eternal reward of somekind. But I find hope in the human experience, I find hope in the beauty of the universe and I find hope in our capacity for resilience and generosity and forgiveness. I also exercise faith differently, as faith to me means trust these days, and I trust others and trust institutions, but I don't trust blindly as religions often espouse, my version of faith/trust is much more reserved, but its still something I find utility in. As for the aren't any faithful answers, I was speaking in the context of the person who's truly questioning religion and their existence. For that person, there aren't any satisfactory faithful answers. But I recognize that for others who aren't in that stage, who might have a few questions, but who aren't really diving deeply into a full on faith crisis, they often find answers that satisfy. Two different things in my opinion. 8 hours ago, Meerkat said: "38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out. 39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof. 40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life." HFT, I truly do not mean that as an insult to your position. There is a way to know, and that is to apply the message to one's life.. Thanks for your words of concern for our boys and all effected. I wish you well on your quest for truth and meaning. I really like Alma 32, it is essentially the pragmatist approach to religion. If what you sow produces fruit, then you should continue to nourish it and watch it grow. This works for atheists and other religions just as effectively as for Mormons. If those seeds grow and enrich their lives they should continue to nourish them. At the end of the day, find what works well for you and brings you good fruit and follow that. Live and let live kind of thinking, which I think is a good approach in general for societies to operate by. Unfortunately, this process never really gets people questioning their assumptions and examining their biases, which if people do with humility they will find many flaws that could be corrected and could lead to even better outcomes. We humans aren't very good at evaluating our existence in an objective way. I think religion has principles that call for humility and examination, but these are often in tension with teachings of unquestioned loyalty and obedience. So, its a process to weed through the chaff to find the wheat and that can be a difficult and delicate process. Anyway, thanks for the exchange, as always, I wish you the best.
Meerkat Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 12 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Now personally, even though I'm not a theist, I still feel like I practice the principles of hope and faith, but these are manifest differently. I can agree with that. 12 hours ago, hope_for_things said: If what you sow produces fruit, then you should continue to nourish it and watch it grow. This works for atheists and other religions just as effectively as for Mormons. If those seeds grow and enrich their lives they should continue to nourish them. At the end of the day, find what works well for you and brings you good fruit and follow that. Live and let live kind of thinking, which I think is a good approach in general for societies to operate by. I can't argue with you there either. 13 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I also exercise faith differently, as faith to me means trust these days, and I trust others and trust institutions, but I don't trust blindly as religions often espouse, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "trust blindly as religions often espouse." You are not talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are you? In your explanation of why you really like Alma 32, you said "If what you sow produces fruit, then you should continue to nourish it and watch it grow. This works for athiests and other religions just as effectively as Mormons." Exactly right. What blind trust is this religion espousing? Alma 32:27 says this: "27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words (How can this be considered an espousal of "blind trust?") and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words." In other words "Try it. You may like it. You may not." Alma 32 tells you what you can expect from the experiment. I tested it myself, and continue to test it every day. The promise works as advertised. Give it another try. Or not. Up to you. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "I also exercise faith..." You exercise it in people and institutions, but not God, Christ or religion? How does that faith work for you? With religion, you are requiring proof for everything. Do you hold people and institutions to the same standard? 14 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Live and let live kind of thinking, which I think is a good approach in general for societies to operate by. Unfortunately, this process never really gets people questioning their assumptions and examining their biases, which if people do with humility they will find many flaws that could be corrected and could lead to even better outcomes. I find agreement with you here once again. Live and let live is a good approach. But we are each biased in our opinions, and want the other side to question THEIR assumptions. Religion's assumption is "Try the experiment." That's not "trust blindly." Malachi 3:10 states "prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven." Doctrine and Covenants 130:20 states "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." HFT, our church is full of this doctrine. Try it. If it doesn't work for you, walk away from it. But give it a sincere try. I have, those principles have been proved to my satisfaction repeatedly. Any disappointments have been due to my own lack of effort or misunderstandings about what I expected. If you don't want to give it another try, I understand. We each have our biases. I'm not unhappy with my faith either. It works for me bringing much joy. I have no interest in replacing it or criticizing it's foundations. So there you go. You are right again. We are each biased. 🙄 1
Recommended Posts