Hi, I'm new… …and a topic 😉

[clarkgoble]

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

I'm from Germany, 26 years old and a relatively recent convert to the church. I study and work in a philosophy department at a German university, specifically in the field of phenomenology (mostly Lévinas, Merleau-Ponty ans Heidegger), proto-ethics, alterity, metaphysics and ontology. Within the church, I am a big fan of the Nauvoo period, because I think there the doctrine was at its peak blossom, far from the beginning and it was before everything went in a lot of directions in Utah. 

Welcome. By the way there's a mailing list, LDS-Herm, that has a lot of Heideggarians on including Mark Wrathall and Jim Faulconer. It's not nearly as busy as it used to be in its heyday. But there's a few posts every week. Feel free to join. Maybe some fresh blood will engender more discussion again.

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

For this first post I also wanted to bring a discussion topic, concerning Brigham Young's concept of what one might call „intelligence recycling“. What do you think of this concept? 

I think Brigham Young was roughly what we'd today call a physicalist in terms of ontology. This was in opposition to Orson Pratt's property dualism atomism. More or less what Young thought happened to sons of perdition was dissolution into component "stuff" which Young thought constituted intelligence. While Young never had worked out ontology, I suspect he'd have a position somewhat similar to Searle and many non-reductive and non-eliminative physicalists hold to where consciousness is certain physical stuff organized in a certain way.

While I confess I'm more sympathetic to Pratt than Young on this point, I think people dismiss Young far too quickly out of hand. Honestly I think people assume there's more unambiguous revelations on intelligence than there is. I don't think we really know what it is. That said I'm also pretty skeptical of both Pratt's sort of property dualism and Searle styled physicalism.

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

It seems to be debated by various prophets if that is true all the way to exaltation. But that the sons of perdition have to be at least resurrected.

They aren't the same person in any significant sense in Young's model though. I'm not sure Young accepted Kimball's type of reincarnation or at least progression between Kingdoms. But I think it pretty clear that he thought everyone who wasn't saved was destroyed in a fundamental sense. Interestingly some have tied this view of his to the some Catholic notions of Tartarus as a hell below hell where souls are ultimately destroyed. (I unfortunately don't know enough about medieval theology to know if this was well accepted) In 1 Enoch though Tartarus is where the fallen watchers were imprisoned. I assume Brigham is picking up some of these traditions as annihilationsim was discussed in the 19th century. It was one of the doctrines that characterized the Adventist movement (of which Seventh Day Adventists were one of the more successful factions). 

So far as I know though Brigham's views here never caught on and you don't really hear them much in the 20th century. It's much more common to see versions of Pratt's views, often with intelligence treated as an immaterial Cartesian like soul rather than a property, with the idea that such intelligences were unable to be destroyed or created. Interestingly major works such as McConkie's tended to take a skeptical eye towards most theorizing about the nature of intelligence. In recent years there's been a move by some like Jonathan Stapley to try and equate intelligence and spirit largely due to their ambiguity and conflation in Nauvoo.

 

[smac97]

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

Hi, I'm new on this forum. I'm from Germany, 26 years old and a relatively recent convert to the church. I study and work in a philosophy department at a German university, specifically in the field of phenomenology (mostly Lévinas, Merleau-Ponty ans Heidegger), proto-ethics, alterity, metaphysics and ontology. Within the church, I am a big fan of the Nauvoo period, because I think there the doctrine was at its peak blossom, far from the beginning and it was before everything went in a lot of directions in Utah. 

Wow!  Welcome to the board.

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

I am glad to join in discussion, mind, I am young, not born into the church and English is not my first language 😉

 

Understood.

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

For this first post I also wanted to bring a discussion topic, concerning Brigham Young's concept of what one might call „intelligence recycling“. What do you think of this concept?

We lack sufficient light and knowledge on this topic, such that we cannot formulate much in the way of a coherent treatment of it.  So we're left mostly with speculation.  As long as we don't attached too much emphasis and importance to such speculation, I say carry on.

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

What do you think of universal salvation? Does it matter?

You will have to define terms here.

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

Should we belief because something is promised to us or is there acutally a different reason why we have faith and obedience?

I've heard it said that obedience to a law can arise out of three general categories of motives:

• A) for Fear of Punishment / Sense of Duty;
• B) for Hope of Reward; and
• C) for the Love of God.

President Oaks addressed this tripartite approach some years ago here:

Quote

Some may serve out of fear of punishment. The scriptures abound with descriptions of the miserable state of those who fail to follow the commandments of God. Thus, King Benjamin taught his people that the soul of the unrepentant transgressor would be filled with “a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.” (Mosiah 2:38.) Such descriptions surely offer sufficient incentive for keeping the commandment of service. But service out of fear of punishment is a lesser motive at best.

Other persons may serve out of a sense of duty or out of loyalty to friends or family or traditions. These are those I would call the good soldiers, who instinctively do what they are asked without question and sometimes without giving much thought to the reasons for their service. Such persons fill the ranks of voluntary organizations everywhere, and they do much good. We have all benefited by the good works of such persons. Those who serve out of a sense of duty or loyalty to various wholesome causes are the good and honorable men and women of the earth.

Service of the character I have just described is worthy of praise and will surely qualify for blessings, especially if it is done willingly and joyfully. As the Apostle Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians:

“But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.

“Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” (2 Cor. 9:6–7.)

“It is obeying God willingly that is accepted,” an anonymous writer has said. “The Lord hates that which is forced—it is rather a tax than an offering.”

Although those who serve out of fear of punishment or out of a sense of duty undoubtedly qualify for the blessings of heaven, there are still higher reasons for service.

One such higher reason for service is the hope of an eternal reward. This hope—the expectation of enjoying the fruits of our labors—is one of the most powerful sources of motivation. As a reason for service, it necessarily involves faith in God and in the fulfillment of his prophecies. The scriptures are rich in promises of eternal rewards. For example, in a revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1829, the Lord said: “If you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.” (D&C 14:7.)

The last motive I will discuss is, in my opinion, the highest reason of all. In its relationship to service, it is what the scriptures call “a more excellent way.” (1 Cor. 12:31.)

“Charity is the pure love of Christ.” (Moro. 7:47.) The Book of Mormon teaches us that this virtue is “the greatest of all.” (Moro. 7:46.) The Apostle Paul affirmed and illustrated that truth in his great teaching about the reasons for service:

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. …

“And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, … and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” (1 Cor. 13:1–3.)

We know from these inspired words that even the most extreme acts of service—such as giving all of our goods to feed the poor—profit us nothing unless our service is motivated by the pure love of Christ.

I think the whole article is worth reading.  

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

What do you think about the different stances on what will happen to the sons of perdition?

I am open to all of them.  The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, while not definitive, has this to say on that subject:

Quote

It has been suggested that in the absence of the life-sustaining powers of God's Spirit, sons of perdition will eventually become disorganized and return to "native element" (JD 1:349-52; 5:271; 7:358-59). However, scripture declares that "the soul can never die" (Alma 12:20) and that in the Resurrection the spirit and the body are united "never to be divided" (Alma 11:45; cf. 12:18; D&C 93:33). The ultimate fate of sons of perdition will be made known only to those who are partakers thereof and will not be definitely revealed until the last judgment (D&C 29:27-30;43:33;76:43-48; TPJS, p. 24).

We simply don't know enough about this subject.  And that is probably a good things.

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

Universal Salvation, even in the sense of Universal Exaltation does indeed seem to be an idea in Mormonism through different prophets:
Brigham Young 1853:
"The Lord said to Jeremiah the Prophet, "Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hands of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it." The clay that marred in the potter's hands was thrown back into the unprepared portion, to be prepared over again. So it will be with every wicked man and woman, and every wicked nation, kingdom, and government upon earth, sooner or later; they will be thrown back to the native element from which they originated, to be worked over again, and be prepared to enjoy some sort of a kingdom."
It seems to be debated by various prophets if that is true all the way to exaltation. But that the sons of perdition have to be at least resurrected.
Anton H Lund 1904:
"Perhaps the sons of perdition are the last class. All will be resurrected. Jesus died for us all. He became the Redeemer, He bought us for a price, and His death brought the privilege of resurrection unto every soul, whether he be a sinner or not. All will receive a share in the resurrection--not in the first resurrection, but they will be resurrected, and will be brought before the bar of our Heavenly Father."
Joseph Fielding Smith:
"Question: "Will those who in this life become sons of perdition receive their bodies in the resurrection? If so, will they have to pass through death again? If they do not, and their bodies and spirits are again united never to be divided, will they have ascendancy, or jurisdiction, over Satan and those who rebelled with him and who have no bodies of flesh and bones?"

Answer: The matter of the resurrection being universal has been discussed in former articles appearing in The Improvement Era. Therefore it is sufficient to say here that the resurrection will be universal and every soul born into this world must receive his body and spirit reunited inseparably in the resurrection."

FAIR seems to cover this stuff well.  The simple answer, though, is that we just don't know.  

On 12/1/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

What do you say, fellow saints and everyone else? Brigham Young's idea seems intriguing. Those sons of perdition being so far from God that they turn back into impersonal intelligence then being put into spirit tabernacles again and again until everyone is saved and eventually exalted.

It's an interesting question in the abstract.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

True, and awesome response!

No formal reincarnation, as our memory and intelligence continues with us however...I imagine the Savior who created this earth out of existing material likely visited, in His Spirit body, every world His hands helped create.  Each visit does not equal reincarnation but...each visit / cycle of creation seems to demonstrate the salient slivers of truth formal reincarnation aspires to, meaning that Adam and Eve's children who diluted the true doctrine of eternal progression still got more correct than traditional Christianity and the Bible.

I answered concerning multiple mortal probations with the unspoken caveat that it's highly speculative, and I would never teach it as doctrine, not least because I don't know if it is actually true.  Perhaps God knows us so well that he doesn't need but one probationary experience.  I would hope he knows us that well, anyway.  The actual experience in mortality may then be more for us than for him.

I'm just glad he let me come and try!

Edited December 4, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Brigham Young was roughly what we'd today call a physicalist in terms of ontology. This was in opposition to Orson Pratt's property dualism atomism.

Hmmm.  What would I be considered, I wonder?  Is there some website somewhere that asks you questions about what you think about certain things and tells you what your ontology is based on your answers?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Hmmm.  What would I be considered, I wonder?  Is there some website somewhere that asks you questions about what you think about certain things and tells you what your ontology is based on your answers?

Not really. But here's some questions and I can help.

Do you think the mental is physical in some sense whether as an innate property of matter or something enabled by particular types of matter in certain arrangements? Or do you think the divide between the mental and the physical is problematic and should just be eliminated?

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not really. But here's some questions and I can help.

Do you think the mental is physical in some sense whether as an innate property of matter or something enabled by particular types of matter in certain arrangements? Or do you think the divide between the mental and the physical is problematic and should just be eliminated?

Yes!

Just kidding... or maybe not.

I considered these two questions for some time.  The problem is, I resonate to them both.  But I think I resonate primarily to the second.

So...  Yes to #2.

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes!

Just kidding... or maybe not.

I considered these two questions for some time.  The problem is, I resonate to them both.  But I think I resonate primarily to the second.

So...  Yes to #2.

You're probably an eliminative materialist ala the Churchlands. I'm not sure of Mark's views here, but I'd lay good odds that he moves in that direction as well. My personal view is vacillating between a Searle like view and a variant of property dualism. The Searle like view is that the mental to the physical is analogous to say power from a gasoline motor. So a simulation of a gasoline motor wouldn't produce power the way a motor does. In the same way a simulation of a mind wouldn't work the way a mind works. However there may be many ways to produce a mind, much like there are a variety of material ways to make a motor. The more property dualism approach is the idea that there has to be some mind-like properties that when combined in a special way create a mind. So it's close to the Searle like view but thinks there has to be something akin to proto-mind as a property of matter rather than it just emerging out of regular matter and its known properties.

 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Hmmm.  What would I be considered, I wonder?  Is there some website somewhere that asks you questions about what you think about certain things and tells you what your ontology is based on your answers?

Silly, it's based on the position of the stars at your birth which your spirit knocks against on the way down out of heaven.

Everybody knows that.   And then you look it up in the "Your Very Own Ontology Book".

They sell them at Walmart.  Cheesh you are not a very smart person are you?

And then you look up in the newspaper what you are supposed to believe for the month!!   Get a clue!!

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not really. But here's some questions and I can help.

Do you think the mental is physical in some sense whether as an innate property of matter or something enabled by particular types of matter in certain arrangements? Or do you think the divide between the mental and the physical is problematic and should just be eliminated?

I think clearly it is all about essences and the nature of the appearance which imprints itself on the substance as a kind of cookie cutter at Christmas time.  But that of course is simplified.  I could go on for several pages if you like.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes!

Just kidding... or maybe not.

I considered these two questions for some time.  The problem is, I resonate to them both.  But I think I resonate primarily to the second.

So...  Yes to #2.

One must define one's own vibrational frequency which determines the ontology of the accident which then impresses itself on its essence, and only in this way can phenomena qualify phenomenologically to be seen pragmatically as something to be considered "real".   So this is clearly where the concept of resonance enters the equation.

[RevTestament]

On 12/1/2018 at 4:54 PM, The Refiner's Fire said:

Hi, I'm new on this forum. I'm from Germany, 26 years old and a relatively recent convert to the church. I study and work in a philosophy department at a German university, specifically in the field of phenomenology (mostly Lévinas, Merleau-Ponty ans Heidegger), proto-ethics, alterity, metaphysics and ontology. Within the church, I am a big fan of the Nauvoo period, because I think there the doctrine was at its peak blossom, far from the beginning and it was before everything went in a lot of directions in Utah. 

I am glad to join in discussion, mind, I am young, not born into the church and English is not my first language 😉

Welcome to the forum. Well, it seems those factors disqualify you then....  

Quote

For this first post I also wanted to bring a discussion topic, concerning Brigham Young's concept of what one might call „intelligence recycling“. What do you think of this concept? What do you think of universal salvation? Does it matter?

Intelligence does not "recycle" but lives on in spirit. I believe all spirit has a form of intelligence. 

Not all intelligences will receive salvation, because some will not accept Christ. Does that matter? It is just truth. Some will go onto become sons of Satan like those spirits Christ sent out of men and who went into the swine. They came from somewhere. Aren't we taught they rejected the plan of our Savior?

Quote

Should we belief because something is promised to us or is there acutally a different reason why we have faith and obedience? What do you think about the different stances on what will happen to the sons of perdition?

I don't concern myself about other beliefs on what will happen to the sons of perdition. That is not terribly material to our own salvation and exaltation. I am not obedient because I fear of becoming a son of perdition. I am obedient out of love and respect for my Savior and fellow man.

Quote

Universal Salvation, even in the sense of Universal Exaltation does indeed seem to be an idea in Mormonism through different prophets:
Brigham Young 1853:
"The Lord said to Jeremiah the Prophet, "Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hands of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it." The clay that marred in the potter's hands was thrown back into the unprepared portion, to be prepared over again. So it will be with every wicked man and woman, and every wicked nation, kingdom, and government upon earth, sooner or later; they will be thrown back to the native element from which they originated, to be worked over again, and be prepared to enjoy some sort of a kingdom."
It seems to be debated by various prophets if that is true all the way to exaltation. But that the sons of perdition have to be at least resurrected.
Anton H Lund 1904:
"Perhaps the sons of perdition are the last class. All will be resurrected. Jesus died for us all. He became the Redeemer, He bought us for a price, and His death brought the privilege of resurrection unto every soul, whether he be a sinner or not. All will receive a share in the resurrection--not in the first resurrection, but they will be resurrected, and will be brought before the bar of our Heavenly Father."
Joseph Fielding Smith:
"Question: "Will those who in this life become sons of perdition receive their bodies in the resurrection? If so, will they have to pass through death again? If they do not, and their bodies and spirits are again united never to be divided, will they have ascendancy, or jurisdiction, over Satan and those who rebelled with him and who have no bodies of flesh and bones?"

Answer: The matter of the resurrection being universal has been discussed in former articles appearing in The Improvement Era. Therefore it is sufficient to say here that the resurrection will be universal and every soul born into this world must receive his body and spirit reunited inseparably in the resurrection."

What do you say, fellow saints and everyone else? Brigham Young's idea seems intriguing. Those sons of perdition being so far from God that they turn back into impersonal intelligence then being put into spirit tabernacles again and again until everyone is saved and eventually exalted.

resurrection is universal for those who have lived on this earth. Salvation is not. In this I seem to be in somewhat of disagreement with some. Christ will not save those who never accept Him - even when they see Him at the last judgment. D&C teaches that Satan has the power to destroy body and soul. However, he does not have the power to destroy spirit. Sons of perdition will remain spirit - I am not positive what you mean by "impersonal intelligence." They cannot come back into this world in human form - everyone gets that chance once per Hebrews. Whether they can inherit another life on another world is beyond my current knowledge. If they never accept the Savior even at the last judgement, I believe they are not prone to accept the gospel plan for the next world - indeed, that may be the deciding factor of the pre-existence of the next world. However, whether they are locked out forever, I have to say I am not sure. If they concede to the plan at some point, perhaps they may be able to enter back into eternal lives. I am not sure. That veil is not totally lifted. Thanks for an interesting discussion.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/4/2018 at 8:11 AM, Stargazer said:

Hmmm.  What would I be considered, I wonder?  Is there some website somewhere that asks you questions about what you think about certain things and tells you what your ontology is based on your answers?

Just to make it clear clear clear my earlier posts were sarcastic.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 12/4/2018 at 8:11 AM, Stargazer said:

Hmmm.  What would I be considered, I wonder?  Is there some website somewhere that asks you questions about what you think about certain things and tells you what your ontology is based on your answers?

This is not a bad start

 

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Silly, it's based on the position of the stars at your birth which your spirit knocks against on the way down out of heaven.

Everybody knows that.   And then you look it up in the "Your Very Own Ontology Book".

They sell them at Walmart.  Cheesh you are not a very smart person are you?

And then you look up in the newspaper what you are supposed to believe for the month!!   Get a clue!!

Darn.  I thought it would be more complicated!  Thanks for setting me straight! 

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Just to make it clear clear clear my earlier posts were sarcastic.

 

 

Don't worry, my sarcasm meter is adequately calibrated to detect that!

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This is not a bad start

 

Thanks, that was very interesting!

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Don't worry, my sarcasm meter is adequately calibrated to detect that!

You never know.  You know how with close friends among guys, you might "insult" someone teasingly and it is funny- like entering a fancy restaurant, meeting a friend, you might say, while shaking hands "Boy they actually let you into THIS place?"

Well I said that once to a buddy in the temple within the earshot of some members while I was a bishop.   It did not go well. 

I hope Clark got that too!