mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: It makes perfect sense to me. Correlation, Literalism, folklore, tradition and supernaturalism are contributing factors. Essentially you’re promoting a way of looking at things that is very foreign to the average person. I should hope so, that is my goal. It cracks me up when people say "But that's not Mormonism"!! Duh. The whole point is that it is what Mormonism could be, and is philosophically justifiable if Mormons could see it. And the view can be seen as completely scriptural, just with different interpretations than they are used to. 1
hope_for_things Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I should hope so, that is my goal. It cracks me up when people say "But that's not Mormonism"!! Duh. The whole point is that it is what Mormonism could be, and is philosophically justifiable if Mormons could see it. And the view can be seen as completely scriptural, just with different interpretations than they are used to. I don’t see how this philosophy justifies Mormonism anymore than it justifies any other religion. Which is fine with me, I don’t see a lot of value to the exclusivity arguments anyway.
mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: I don’t see how this philosophy justifies Mormonism anymore than it justifies any other religion. Which is fine with me, I don’t see a lot of value to the exclusivity arguments anyway. It is not about objective justification at all. Sigh. Each religion is it's own sub-paradigm and community. Each sub-paradigm justifies itself according to it's own rules and doctrine stressing their own scriptures, etc. but what is needed is a more general point of view that justifies the whole approach to religion, and that is contextual Truth and meaning that we get from Wittgenstein, Rorty, James, Dewey, and all the theorists about dialetheism and paraconsistency, and even some aesthetics. And that is a huge chunk of contemporary philosophy which can be seen as friendly to religion. I mean look at Rorty, the mean atheist who finally got religion! I know, I know, you want your hard and fast reality but it's not there. It keeps changing because it is alive, not a dead fossil. I will date myself: Jefferson Airplane, Crown of Creation "Life is change! How it differs from the rocks! I have seen their ways too often for my liking New Worlds to gain! ... My life is to survive and be alive! " Hey come on, what is theology without rock n roll ?
hope_for_things Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: It is not about objective justification at all. Sigh. Each religion is it's own sub-paradigm and community. Each sub-paradigm justifies itself according to it's own rules and doctrine stressing their own scriptures, etc. but what is needed is a more general point of view that justifies the whole approach to religion, and that is contextual Truth and meaning that we get from Wittgenstein, Rorty, James, Dewey, and all the theorists about dialetheism and paraconsistency, and even some aesthetics. And that is a huge chunk of contemporary philosophy which can be seen as friendly to religion. I mean look at Rorty, the mean atheist who finally got religion! I know, I know, you want your hard and fast reality but it's not there. It keeps changing because it is alive, not a dead fossil. I will date myself: Jefferson Airplane, Crown of Creation "Life is change! How it differs from the rocks! I have seen their ways too often for my liking New Worlds to gain! ... My life is to survive and be alive! " Hey come on, what is theology without rock n roll ? I see what you’re saying, but its really not that compelling a sales pitch though. Hey, come join my religion, it’s true according to its own internal paradigm! Yippee skippy, might as well join Amway too while I’m at it.
mfbukowski Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I see what you’re saying, but its really not that compelling a sales pitch though. Hey, come join my religion, it’s true according to its own internal paradigm! Yippee skippy, might as well join Amway too while I’m at it. It's not "my" religion, it's Kuhn applied to religion. Dunno why you never get it. Yet you buy scientism, true according to it's own internal paradigm and no workable epistemology. Yippee Skippy. Edited January 2, 2019 by mfbukowski
hope_for_things Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: It's not "my" religion, it's Kuhn applied to religion. Dunno why you never get it. Yet you buy scientism, true according to it's own internal paradigm and no workable epistemology. Yippee Skippy. I think I do “get it”, this relativistic approach to religion is just fine with me, it just nulifies all authority arguments. As for scientism, I’m offended that you would accuse me of that, and I don’t believe it’s accurate. I’m going to church again, I’m working on finding value in the metaphors of religion, and honestly it’s been refreshing and I hope will yield fruit. I really do consider myself a skeptic, but I don’t think I apply the scientific approach in unwarranted ways.
mfbukowski Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I think I do “get it”, this relativistic approach to religion is just fine with me, it just nulifies all authority arguments. As for scientism, I’m offended that you would accuse me of that, and I don’t believe it’s accurate. I’m going to church again, I’m working on finding value in the metaphors of religion, and honestly it’s been refreshing and I hope will yield fruit. I really do consider myself a skeptic, but I don’t think I apply the scientific approach in unwarranted ways. I earnestly apologize seriously. I had no clue! Authority is always up to the one who allows it to govern him. It doesn't exist "out there" any more than anything else, but is a mental state. Authority is not based in science and has nothing to do with relativism and doesn't nullify who you decide to give authority. I just suggest you don't mess with the IRS.
hope_for_things Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I earnestly apologize seriously. I had no clue! Authority is always up to the one who allows it to govern him. It doesn't exist "out there" any more than anything else, but is a mental state. Authority is not based in science and has nothing to do with relativism and doesn't nullify who you decide to give authority. I just suggest you don't mess with the IRS. Thanks, I do agree about authority but unfortunately that is one of the dominant themes in contemporary Mormonism and a core principle that the brethren continue their drum beat about in order to try and stay relevant. I think in a modern and increasingly transparent world the appeals to authority will increasing ring hollow. We need to articulate our values using the best logic and reasoning and get in the business of inspiration and get out of the business of self adulation. Religion needs to divorce itself from flawed traditions and transform or it will continue to dwindle. I think part of the reason that even orthodox Mormons are so overwhelmingly in favor of reducing the 3 hr block, is that even they continue to lose faith in the primary messages being communicated at church. It is boring and all about proving your allegiance to orthodoxy. It isn't deep and inspirational. Promotion of authority and exclusivity rings increasingly hollow for people who are a part of broader society. Think about it, people go to work every day and likely interact with a diversity of great humans who aren't orthodox Mormons, and then they turn around and go to church on Sunday and hear a bunch of crap about how we're the chosen people with the real truth? Its ironic how similar it is to the Rameumptom story in the BoM.
mfbukowski Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks, I do agree about authority but unfortunately that is one of the dominant themes in contemporary Mormonism and a core principle that the brethren continue their drum beat about in order to try and stay relevant. I think in a modern and increasingly transparent world the appeals to authority will increasing ring hollow. We need to articulate our values using the best logic and reasoning and get in the business of inspiration and get out of the business of self adulation. Religion needs to divorce itself from flawed traditions and transform or it will continue to dwindle. I think part of the reason that even orthodox Mormons are so overwhelmingly in favor of reducing the 3 hr block, is that even they continue to lose faith in the primary messages being communicated at church. It is boring and all about proving your allegiance to orthodoxy. It isn't deep and inspirational. Promotion of authority and exclusivity rings increasingly hollow for people who are a part of broader society. Think about it, people go to work every day and likely interact with a diversity of great humans who aren't orthodox Mormons, and then they turn around and go to church on Sunday and hear a bunch of crap about how we're the chosen people with the real truth? Its ironic how similar it is to the Rameumptom story in the BoM. Frankly I see very little of that outside Utah, and what I do see of it us changing. Just read the first part of Elder Oaks talk from the last conference, before he gets to the Proclamation portion (which I support) and see what he says about truth, and then apply it to the rest of the talk.
hope_for_things Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Frankly I see very little of that outside Utah, and what I do see of it us changing. Just read the first part of Elder Oaks talk from the last conference, before he gets to the Proclamation portion (which I support) and see what he says about truth, and then apply it to the rest of the talk. I'm glad to hear that you don't see it as much outside of Utah. Hopefully that will change. I can't read Oaks talk again, it was way too painful for me the first time. The bigotry and self righteous attitude he promulgated in that talk are anathema to the gospel I believe in.
mfbukowski Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm glad to hear that you don't see it as much outside of Utah. Hopefully that will change. I can't read Oaks talk again, it was way too painful for me the first time. The bigotry and self righteous attitude he promulgated in that talk are anathema to the gospel I believe in. Just the first part. Maybe I will quote it
mfbukowski Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 Regarding that renegade Bukowski who doesn't understand what Mormonism is and how it defines truth, clearly Bukowski is a fringe wacko who simply does not understand Mormonism! Bukowski actually thinks that we should not use secular knowledge in a church context and separate scientific knowledge from spiritual knowledge What a crank! Here is something Bukowski read in church.... Quote When we seek the truth about religion, we should use spiritual methods appropriate for that search. Modern revelation defines truth as a “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:24). That is a perfect definition for the plan of salvation and “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” We live in a time of greatly expanded and disseminated information. But not all of this information is true. We need to be cautious as we seek truth and choose sources for that search. We should not consider secular prominence or authority as qualified sources of truth. We should be cautious about relying on information or advice offered by entertainment stars, prominent athletes, or anonymous internet sources. Expertise in one field should not be taken as expertise on truth in other subjects. We should also be cautious about the motivation of the one who provides information. That is why the scriptures warn us against priestcraft (see 2 Nephi 26:29). If the source is anonymous or unknown, the information may also be suspect. Our personal decisions should be based on information from sources that are qualified on the subject and free from selfish motivations. I. When we seek the truth about religion, we should use spiritual methods appropriate for that search: prayer, the witness of the Holy Ghost, and study of the scriptures and the words of modern prophets. I am always sad when I hear of one who reports a loss of religious faith because of secular teachings. Those who once had spiritual vision can suffer from self-inflicted spiritual blindness. As President Henry B. Eyring said, “Their problem does not lie in what they think they see; it lies in what they cannot yet see.”1 The methods of science lead us to what we call scientific truth. But “scientific truth” is not the whole of life. Those who do not learn “by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118) limit their understanding of truth to what they can verify by scientific means. That puts artificial limits on their pursuit of truth. President James E. Faust said: “Those who have been [baptized] put their eternal soul at risk by carelessly pursuing only the secular source of learning. We believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the fulness of the gospel of Christ, which gospel is the essence of truth and eternal enlightenment.”2 We find true and enduring joy by coming to know and acting upon the truth about who we are, the meaning of mortal life, and where we are going when we die. Those truths cannot be learned by scientific or secular methods. ..... while quoting ELDER OAKS in his conference address. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/truth-and-the-plan?lang=eng
mfbukowski Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Think about it, people go to work every day and likely interact with a diversity of great humans who aren't orthodox Mormons, and then they turn around and go to church on Sunday and hear a bunch of crap about how we're the chosen people with the real truth? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/truth-and-the-plan?lang=eng Quote When we seek the truth about religion, we should use spiritual methods appropriate for that search.... We live in a time of greatly expanded and disseminated information. But not all of this information is true. We need to be cautious as we seek truth and choose sources for that search. We should not consider secular prominence or authority as qualified sources of truth. We should be cautious about relying on information or advice offered by entertainment stars, prominent athletes, or anonymous internet sources. Expertise in one field should not be taken as expertise on truth in other subjects. We should also be cautious about the motivation of the one who provides information. That is why the scriptures warn us against priestcraft (see 2 Nephi 26:29). If the source is anonymous or unknown, the information may also be suspect. Our personal decisions should be based on information from sources that are qualified on the subject and free from selfish motivations. I. When we seek the truth about religion, we should use spiritual methods appropriate for that search: prayer, the witness of the Holy Ghost, and study of the scriptures and the words of modern prophets. I am always sad when I hear of one who reports a loss of religious faith because of secular teachings. Those who once had spiritual vision can suffer from self-inflicted spiritual blindness. As President Henry B. Eyring said, “Their problem does not lie in what they think they see; it lies in what they cannot yet see.”1 The methods of science lead us to what we call scientific truth. But “scientific truth” is not the whole of life. Those who do not learn “by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118) limit their understanding of truth to what they can verify by scientific means. That puts artificial limits on their pursuit of truth. President James E. Faust said: “Those who have been [baptized] put their eternal soul at risk by carelessly pursuing only the secular source of learning. We believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the fulness of the gospel of Christ, which gospel is the essence of truth and eternal enlightenment.”2 We find true and enduring joy by coming to know and acting upon the truth about who we are, the meaning of mortal life, and where we are going when we die. Those truths cannot be learned by scientific or secular methods. Edited January 2, 2019 by mfbukowski
hope_for_things Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) Quote When we seek the truth about religion, we should use spiritual methods appropriate for that search.... No concerns here, I agree. Quote We live in a time of greatly expanded and disseminated information. But not all of this information is true. We need to be cautious as we seek truth and choose sources for that search. We should not consider secular prominence or authority as qualified sources of truth. We should be cautious about relying on information or advice offered by entertainment stars, prominent athletes, or anonymous internet sources. Expertise in one field should not be taken as expertise on truth in other subjects. We should also be cautious about the motivation of the one who provides information. That is why the scriptures warn us against priestcraft (see 2 Nephi 26:29). If the source is anonymous or unknown, the information may also be suspect. Our personal decisions should be based on information from sources that are qualified on the subject and free from selfish motivations. Starts to go off the rails here. He's stuck on an appeal to authority. His orientation it towards "qualified sources of truth". I'm oriented towards reason and good arguments that make sense based on the strength of the reasoning. Oaks cares about WHO is promulgating an idea. If its not from a qualified source, then its not valid. He then confuses a partially true statement "expertise in one field should not be taken as expertise... in other subjects", and then implies that these experts (authorities) are the only people we can rely on. Don't listen to anonymous sources, probably a good rule of thumb to be at least skeptical of anonymous sources, but then he extends that into his underlying appeal to authority fallacy again. Are qualified sources "free from selfish motivations"? Oaks would like everyone to think that you can trust him as a qualified source and that he's free from selfish motivations, surely. Quote When we seek the truth about religion, we should use spiritual methods appropriate for that search: prayer, the witness of the Holy Ghost, and study of the scriptures and the words of modern prophets. I am always sad when I hear of one who reports a loss of religious faith because of secular teachings. Those who once had spiritual vision can suffer from self-inflicted spiritual blindness. As President Henry B. Eyring said, “Their problem does not lie in what they think they see; it lies in what they cannot yet see.”1 I have a very different perspective about people "losing their faith". For many people I would say this is a very good thing to lose faith, especially when its built on a naive world view. This loss of faith could be evidence that someone is thinking and challenging and growing. Secular teachings are not to be demonized and feared. Unfortunately we have super old guys who are clueless about human development and how that relates to faith, leading a powerful church. Quote The methods of science lead us to what we call scientific truth. But “scientific truth” is not the whole of life. Those who do not learn “by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118) limit their understanding of truth to what they can verify by scientific means. That puts artificial limits on their pursuit of truth. This part in isolation is a true statement, and obvious, when did science ever claim to contain the entirety of the importance of life and truths to live by? Oaks seems to love the strawman arguments about science and secularism. Quote President James E. Faust said: “Those who have been [baptized] put their eternal soul at risk by carelessly pursuing only the secular source of learning. We believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the fulness of the gospel of Christ, which gospel is the essence of truth and eternal enlightenment.”2 We find true and enduring joy by coming to know and acting upon the truth about who we are, the meaning of mortal life, and where we are going when we die. Those truths cannot be learned by scientific or secular methods. Our souls are at risk when we pursue secular learning? Good grief, a bunch of hysterical fear mongering. Your soul is much more at risk by blindly following a bunch of old white guys, and not critically thinking about things and developing an internal authority and learning to make right choices for the right reasons rather than just following orders. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: while quoting ELDER OAKS in his conference address. The entire talk was seriously flawed, not just the bigoted parts. Maybe you can elucidate why you thought the first part of the talk was so insightful. I hope you don't now regret asking me... Edited January 2, 2019 by hope_for_things
cdowis Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Quote Our personal decisions should be based on information from sources that are qualified on the subject and free from selfish motivations . In other words, a miracle! Edited January 2, 2019 by cdowis
hope_for_things Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, cdowis said: 26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Quote Our personal decisions should be based on information from sources that are qualified on the subject and free from selfish motivations . In other words, a miracle! The miracle would be if anything Oaks said was free from selfish motivations.
CV75 Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 On 1/1/2019 at 12:06 PM, hope_for_things said: I’m not talking about testing someone’s “understanding” about a belief in a 6000 year old earth. I would be testing the 6000 year old claim to see if any evidence supports it. I imagine an Anthropologist might test the cultural influences that contribute to the beliefs of the people in a specific context. That might be interesting to understand as well. I don’t understand your questions about prayer and the Bible or age of the earth. How is that relevant? To what end are you scientifically testing a biblical literalist's claim (which is based on his understanding of the Bible) that the earth is 6,000 years old? My questions about prayer are relevant because both a geologist and a biblical literalist can keep the same covenants irrespective of their understanding of the age of the earth (or reject them, for that matter). What does their knowing the age of the earth have to do with their faith? Depending on that tidbit as rationale for keeping (or breaking) their covenants would be missing the point of the covenants and the Bible.
hope_for_things Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, CV75 said: To what end are you scientifically testing a biblical literalist's claim (which is based on his understanding of the Bible) that the earth is 6,000 years old? My questions about prayer are relevant because both a geologist and a biblical literalist can keep the same covenants irrespective of their understanding of the age of the earth (or reject them, for that matter). What does their knowing the age of the earth have to do with their faith? Depending on that tidbit as rationale for keeping (or breaking) their covenants would be missing the point of the covenants and the Bible. For the 6000 year old earth, everything science can bring to the table can be used to test that claim. Geology, archaeology, biology, quantum physics, genetics. It doesn't take very many disciplines to show that the earth is older than 6000 years. What does praying about the bible and the earth have to do with keeping covenants? Are you implying that someone makes a covenant to believe the earth is 6000 years old or that the bible is literal??? I don't get why this discussion has anything to do with covenants at all. As for what does this do to someone's faith. Well it could inform them that their literalistic view of the bible is built on faulty assumptions. Edited January 2, 2019 by hope_for_things
CV75 Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: For the 6000 year old earth, everything science can bring to the table can be used to test that claim. Geology, archaeology, biology, quantum physics, genetics. It doesn't take very many disciplines to show that the earth is older than 6000 years. What does praying about the bible and the earth have to do with keeping covenants? Are you implying that someone makes a covenant to believe the earth is 6000 years old or that the bible is literal??? I don't get why this discussion has anything to do with covenants at all. As for what does this do to someone's faith. Well it could inform them that their literalistic view of the bible is built on faulty assumptions. I see some fundamental misunderstanding on all points: I’m not commenting on how you can test the claim, but why. Answer the questions (which were originally rhetorical) and you may see the connection between prayer and keeping covenants irrespective of the age of the earth, or one’s understanding of it. The thread is about epistemology (in the OP, challenging prayer as a method) vis-à-vis the Book of Mormon, which is the “the new covenant” (D&C 84:57), though we have shifted to the Bible (also a covenant) to accommodate you. My questions are not about what knowledge (and the type of knowledge does to faith—Answer: nothing), but about what does their knowing the age of the earth have to do with their faith.
hope_for_things Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 12 minutes ago, CV75 said: I see some fundamental misunderstanding on all points: I’m not commenting on how you can test the claim, but why. Answer the questions (which were originally rhetorical) and you may see the connection between prayer and keeping covenants irrespective of the age of the earth, or one’s understanding of it. The thread is about epistemology (in the OP, challenging prayer as a method) vis-à-vis the Book of Mormon, which is the “the new covenant” (D&C 84:57), though we have shifted to the Bible (also a covenant) to accommodate you. My questions are not about what knowledge (and the type of knowledge does to faith—Answer: nothing), but about what does their knowing the age of the earth have to do with their faith. I answered what it has to do with their faith, in that it can inform their faith. Their whole concept for what the bible is and isn't would change. Their concept about what God is and isn't would change as well. The point of understanding truth is that it is supposed to inform how you operate in the world. For someone who has faith that a priesthood blessing will heal them, so they intentionally don't get the proper medical care that science could otherwise provide, then how would a knowledge of medicine impact their faith? In this case it could be literally life changing knowledge.
CV75 Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I answered what it has to do with their faith, in that it can inform their faith. Their whole concept for what the bible is and isn't would change. Their concept about what God is and isn't would change as well. The point of understanding truth is that it is supposed to inform how you operate in the world. For someone who has faith that a priesthood blessing will heal them, so they intentionally don't get the proper medical care that science could otherwise provide, then how would a knowledge of medicine impact their faith? In this case it could be literally life changing knowledge. Then why shift the conversation from geology to medicine? Why equate an understanding of what doctors can do with not having faith in a priesthood blessing? What does knowing what modern medicine can do (formulaically-speaking and not by the subjective chosen application by the sick person) have to do with exercising faith in a priesthood blessing or the effectiveness of that faith or the ordinance?
hope_for_things Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 37 minutes ago, CV75 said: Then why shift the conversation from geology to medicine? Why equate an understanding of what doctors can do with not having faith in a priesthood blessing? What does knowing what modern medicine can do (formulaically-speaking and not by the subjective chosen application by the sick person) have to do with exercising faith in a priesthood blessing or the effectiveness of that faith or the ordinance? I'm beginning to feel like you're just asking questions in an attempt to get me running around in circles and its getting a little tiresome. I think I'm articulating my points pretty clearly and I'm confused about your positions. Maybe we should let this one end at some point.
Calm Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: that even they continue to lose faith in the primary messages being communicated at church. It is boring and all about proving your allegiance to orthodoxy Projecting much?
hope_for_things Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 9 minutes ago, Calm said: Projecting much? Possibly. Do you have any other theories as to why so many orthodox members seem completely thrilled with the change to a 2 hr block? I'm merely speculating based on my observations. If church is so great and so edifying, why would 1 hr less church be something that an orthodox member would cheer?
CV75 Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I'm beginning to feel like you're just asking questions in an attempt to get me running around in circles and its getting a little tiresome. I think I'm articulating my points pretty clearly and I'm confused about your positions. Maybe we should let this one end at some point. I'm only asking questions that I feel are sticking to the subject. Of course you may not feel like answering them, but that is not my intent. I think they would help you understand a few things you seem to be having trouble with. Do you really want me to answer them for you?
Recommended Posts