The Non-Imperative for a historical Book of Mormon

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yup.  And the soul that is sufficiently "woke" to appreciate the deliciousness of the word becomes more and more like Him Who uttered it.

It's a living tree, Becoming. 

Alma 32 anyone? Gosh I love the BOM.

It's all threre. No way old Joe came up with that stuff.

Edited March 29, 2019 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's a living tree, Becoming. 

Alma 32 anyone? Gosh I love the BOM.

It's all threre. No way old Joe came up with that stuff.

Some day somebody's going to expand on Amazon Ann Coulter's analysis of Trump as an echo both of the Western Mythic Gunslinger who comes into town, cleans up town, rides into sunset paired with Christian from Pilgrim's Progress, the scoundrel protestant who lands heinie-first in Heaven  ...  and find that he and JSJr share altogether too much American frontier hero qualities.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Some day somebody's going to expand on Amazon Ann Coulter's analysis of Trump as an echo both of the Western Mythic Gunslinger who comes into town, cleans up town, rides into sunset paired with Christian from Pilgrim's Progress, the scoundrel protestant who lands heinie-first in Heaven  ...  and find that he and JSJr share altogether too much American frontier hero qualities.

Exactly!

Building a kingdom from matter unorganised is exactly the American ethos.

Make Christianity Great Again!

Where's them red caps anyway?

[CV75]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And the bottom line is that we already know "in our hearts" that murder is wrong and we should treat others the way we want to be treated- and these cannot be deduced from the way the world "really is"- we do not see these principles in action much in this world in which we live.

That is all the proof I need- they are already true in my heart, and were before I joined the church.

For me, the light of Christ serves as a “first witness” ("already true in my heart") and the Holy Ghost as a second witness, basically confirming that which I already hold, however loosely, to be true. In this role and as the Gift and constant companion He is the Comforter, and the Second Comforter confirms the sanctification we obtain through our association with the Holy Ghost. Even Paul on the road to Damascus must have, at some level, already perceived what the Lord confirmed to him in his “wake-up” call.

When I prayed to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, I recall assuming “these things” in Moroni’s Promise to be historical events, even those prophesied in Nephi’s vision, though that was not the concern of my prayer. I equally accepted that the gospel path as laid out in “these things” is what I was to obtain a witness for, in order to follow (rather, to be able to follow) it. The essential piece of knowledge that I obtained from this prayer is that I am to follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus (see this week’s Come Follow Me lesson). I associate, largely by assumption and by association with the central messages, the inclusion of a recorded history with “these things”. If some accept that they are fictional while also having a second witness, I believe it is because, as you pointed out earlier, they more apathetic as to the book’s historicity and more enthusiastic about the word of God that is conveyed to them through it.

I think we can all come up with examples showing how “the word” is manifest through historical (at a minimum our own conscience as we act by it) and fictional (e.g. Jesus’ parables) vehicles. Of course this is all done through perceptions, which take precedence as discussed.

Edited March 30, 2019 by CV75

[Wade Englund]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Wade I have been thinking about this for a few days now and I would like to try a new approach to the problem that avoids metaphysics and makes the issue more practical I think-  I just hope I can get it into words.

We all have beliefs that frame the way we see the world which are based on the way we see the world.

Often those beliefs are not based on hard "facts" about the nature of the world, but are half inherited, half thought through and half not thought through so much.

We build our lives on such ideas, we set our goals and cornerstone beliefs on such rocks.

But some of them may or may not be "facts" and some of them may not be necessary to be facts.

Do we need it to be true that Moses actually hiked up that mountain and saw a burning bush to agree that it is wrong to murder people?

What if there was never such a person as Moses?  Is murder therefore OK?

The bottom line is "does it matter"?

Why does it matter or not matter?  That is a question we all must answer for ourselves.  

Is it easier to believe that we should not murder BECAUSE Moses was a "real man" who "really saw God in the burning bush" and received tablets written by God's own hand containing the 10 commandments?

Is it really necessary to believe that Jesus died literally for our sins in order to know that after all we have done to repent, our sins are forgiven after all we can do to fix them?   That we should forgive ourselves because we have done all we can to "erase" their effects?

Are the lessons in the Book of Mormon any less powerful in our lives if the people who experienced them never existed?

Is the parable of the prodigal son any less "true" because we do not have a photograph of the father in the story or his historical signature on parchment certifying that the story is "true"?

But wait!

Is it possible all these things "really did" happen???

Is it impossible that the did happen?

Inconclusive!   We cannot really know that they did or did not happen the way they appear in scripture!  Impossible!

So do we need to worry about whether or not they happened? 

Is our belief stronger by believing they did?   What is wrong with that in believing that they were "REAL" when such cannot be proven or disproven?

On the other hand even if Moses did not exist do we need that to know murder is wrong?

My point is that OUR personal point of view about historicity is not relevant to our beliefs- either way- about the principles we learn to build the foundations for our lives.  

So yes, if you want to believe they really happened- we don't know for sure anyway

If you want to not believe they really happened- we don't know anyway

If you don't care either way and yet affirm the principles taught, fine- we don't know for sure anyway!

Were the principles "inspired" by a "God"?  If you want to believe that, or not believe it, fine- we don't know for sure anyway!

The important thing is to understand the principles taught- not where the principles came from, and build our lives on these true principles which mankind has understood in their hearts forever.

If Jesus never uttered the words should we stop treating others as we want to be treated?

That is putting "facts" over principles mankind has learned over thousands of years for a peaceful and happy life.

I will support those principles regardless of historical facts every day

And the bottom line is that we already know "in our hearts" that murder is wrong and we should treat others the way we want to be treated- and these cannot be deduced from the way the world "really is"- we do not see these principles in action much in this world in which we live.

That is all the proof I need- they are already true in my heart, and were before I joined the church.

You make some excellent points that I don't necessarily disagree with. It is just that I am thinking less in binary terms,  like true or false, know or don't know, and more in matters of degree of confidence/faith.

And, my mind is trying to justify why Jesus didn't just teach through parables, but he also taught by personal example.. 

For instance, he conveyed the principle of service through the parable of Good Samaritan as well as through personally healing the sick and feeding the hungry.  Granted, the truth of the principle is born out in both.  However, I wonder if the meaningfulness and the conceptual scope, if not also the motivating power, is greater from the example than from the parable. I sense that it is at least with me.

I wonder if, in terms of becoming,  the greater impact in my case may be related to the difference between imagining serving others and actually doing the service, or dreaming of eating and actually eating. Maybe. Maybe not. Does it matter whether the action is imagined or actual? 

I suspect that in my case, the difference in impact may increase the more extreme the application of the principle or the higher the level of the principle?

For example, when I consider Nephi being commanded to kill Laban, were I to consider both individuals as imaginary, it wouldn't be all that morally problematic for me since, to that way of thinking, it didn't actually happen. It would trouble me not much more than the Road Runner dropping an anvil on Coyote's head. However, if I had strong faith that they both actually lived back in that day, and the event actually occurred as written, the command would take on a whole other level of meaning. Granted, either way I may be taught the verity of the principle of obedience to God's command. However, the actuality of the people and events would cause me to wrestle more extensively and deeply with the seeming moral dilemma, and strive for greater understanding, if not also give me greater cause to want to obey God, particularly if I faced a similar extreme dilemma in my own life, which in turn would enhance my capacity or drive in becoming.

Does that make sense?

And this doesn't even touch on the issue I briefly covered with Bro. Goble on another thread, to wit: If one believes that Abraham was an imaginary character,  what does that mean about the promised seed as well as the covenant of Abraham? What ought to be made of the 12 Tribes, and the scattering and gathering of Israel? Is that to be considered as imaginary as well?

Asked another way, are there not aspects of the gospel that necessitate that certain people having lived in mortality and actually done the things written about them--not the least of which Christ?

Just some things to consider, and this with the understanding that regardless whether belief in the historicity is imperative or not, we agree that our biggest concern and efforts ought to be in abiding the principles found in the scriptures so as to become more like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

You make some excellent points that I don't necessarily disagree with. It is just that I am thinking less in binary terms,  like true or false, know or don't know, and more in matters of degree of confidence/faith.

And, my mind is trying to justify why Jesus didn't just teach through parables, but he also taught by personal example.. 

 

Indeed I understand what you mean but perhaps you did not understand my points.

First I agree and believe that all these things REALLY HAPPENED.

But on the other hand I want to teach others that our case is iron-clad either way and that the anti's have no argument in attempting to prove that historicity matters.

He taught by personal example IF he existed- yet we learn to do the same from the stories whether or not they actually happened!  And all we have are the stories and no video "proof" that Jesus really did teach that way.

But we have solid solid evidence of the pragmatic value of the BELIEF that he taught by example- but the principle is that teaching by example makes a tremendous difference in a life -changing way.

That is true whether or not Jesus did it.

Quote

For instance, he conveyed the principle of service through the parable of Good Samaritan as well as through personally healing the sick and feeding the hungry.  Granted, the truth of the principle is born out in both.  However, I wonder if the meaningfulness and the conceptual scope, if not also the motivating power, is greater from the example than from the parable. I sense that it is at least with me.

Yes understood!  And I agree but the point is that you cannot know- except by the spirit and not history- that there WAS a "good Samaritan" or that the miracles happened or if the service happened and yet BILLIONS have learned these principles whether or not they ever "actually happened"!!  And the Billions have learned how well it works to teach by example just as well as if it DID happen because they believed that it did- by the spirit within them- (presumably- if they understood that and were not just slavishly being obedient without believing any of it)

Quote

I wonder if, in terms of becoming,  the greater impact in my case may be related to the difference between imagining serving others and actually doing the service, or dreaming of eating and actually eating. Maybe. Maybe not. Does it matter whether the action is imagined or actual? 

No -

DOING the service is what makes the difference- in my opinion BUT how do we learn that we SHOULD learn by examples of service and teaching it?  First we see it exemplified by SOMEONE and then find that it works!  But who is the "someone"?  Someone who saw an anonymous person teach by examples of service- or see Jesus teaching by examples of service?  The principle works regardless of whether or not Jesus "actually" did it- or not.

Quote

 

I suspect that in my case, the difference in impact may increase the more extreme the application of the principle or the higher the level of the principle?

For example, when I consider Nephi being commanded to kill Laban, were I to consider both individuals as imaginary, it wouldn't be all that morally problematic for me since, to that way of thinking, it didn't actually happen. It would trouble me not much more than the Road Runner dropping an anvil on Coyote's head. However, if I had strong faith that they both actually lived back in that day, and the event actually occurred as written, the command would take on a whole other level of meaning. Granted, either way I may be taught the verity of the principle of obedience to God's command. However, the actuality of the people and events would cause me to wrestle more extensively and deeply with the seeming moral dilemma, and strive for greater understanding, if not also give me greater cause to want to obey God, particularly if I faced a similar extreme dilemma in my own life, which in turn would enhance my capacity or drive in becoming.

Does that make sense?

 

 

 

Of course it does- but only because you BELIEVE - (justifiably I think) that it "really happened" and NOT because it DID happen.

It is you who is adding that importance to the belief - seemingly by your own admission- but it might have been otherwise and there is no way to know which story "really happened"

Yet again though the PRINCIPLE is true regardless of whether or not Laban was "real"- actually killing a real person has got to be a tremendously difficult thing even when it is justifiable.  I have known Viet Nam snipers who have come back suffering from PTSD for having done it many times.  So yes of course REALLY killing a real person is far different than killing an imaginary person- if that even makes sense!

But you BELIEVE it is a real murder- and therefore it really HAS more impact than if it was just a story.   Yet that is because of your belief it is "real" (perhaps)  And like all these points, none can be "proven" to be historical except by testimony- which is fine with me, but nevertheless it matters.

So my point is that you make it "real" because you believe it is.  But maybe it WAS! - I believe it was- but we cannot "prove" that and so we make ourselves open to being attacked by anti's saying that it is not "historical" and therefore the principles are wrong- when historicity has nothing to do with the principles or their truth.   Maybe they killed Laban, maybe it never happened.  But killing a real person is not like imagining it.

Quote

 

And this doesn't even touch on the issue I briefly covered with Bro. Goble on another thread, to wit: If one believes that Abraham was an imaginary character,  what does that mean about the promised seed as well as the covenant of Abraham? What ought to be made of the 12 Tribes, and the scattering and gathering of Israel? Is that to be considered as imaginary as well?

Asked another way, are there not aspects of the gospel that necessitate that certain people having lived in mortality and actually done the things written about them--not the least of which Christ?

Just some things to consider, and this with the understanding that regardless whether belief in the historicity is imperative or not, we agree that our biggest concern and efforts ought to be in abiding the principles found in the scriptures so as to become more like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Do you think God would bless you if he wanted you blessed?  Do you think that Patriarchal blessings show you your literal tribe? The fact is that by this time we are probably all descended from all tribes of Israel. You have 12 Brothers with all their direct descendants then you have all the descendants of those who had any of the blood of those twelve Brothers repeated for what a hundred generations? Your number of ancestors just keeps growing exponentially.

Do you know how many of generations of humanity go back between us and Abraham?

How would anyone prove Abraham never existed?  Besides "proving a negative", it is said that all Europeans are descendants of Charlemagne, who lived around 800 AD, some two THOUSAND years AFTER Abraham.

I wouldn't worry about the Abrahamic covenant not being quite possibly "real"- but yet could God bless whomever he wants?

Of course! and if it is important that we are natural descendants I am sure that that is not a problem simply looking at the math

And of course you are right about abiding the principles taught- that is ALL that matters.

The bottom line is that we cannot know these things as having happened naturally or not. But we do have the confirmation from Alma 32 about spiritual concepts being verified by what is "delicious" to me.

The question is what affect does that belief have in our lives.

Edited March 30, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Does it matter whether the action is imagined or actual? 

I would say yes, but either way, you perceive an action as imagined or actual or both. Acting upon your perception is an element of agency, and I think this matters more than what the action is perceived to be. Another person might draw more authentic inspiration to be Christlike if he takes Nephi’s killing Laban to be a story rather than a history, and that may change from time to time throughout his life.

In the Article of Faith, some things are stated to be literal, and where one might have more difficulty perceiving them as such, Moroni’s Promise comes in handy. “God, what am I to do with this claim which is so appealing but seems so imaginary to me?” If it is “delicious” to him, he might already have more of the answer than not, which he may realize (especially after he reads Alma 32). He may still hold them to be imaginary, but in a spiritually-appealing way, especially after a second spiritual witness.

I believe that all aspects of the gospel necessitate that we all live and do the things that have been written about all the children of God.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would say yes, but either way, you perceive an action as imagined or actual or both. Acting upon your perception is an element of agency, and I think this matters more than what the action is perceived to be. Another person might draw more authentic inspiration to be Christlike if he takes Nephi’s killing Laban to be a story rather than a history, and that may change from time to time throughout his life.

In the Article of Faith, some things are stated to be literal, and where one might have more difficulty perceiving them as such, Moroni’s Promise comes in handy. “God, what am I to do with this claim which is so appealing but seems so imaginary to me?” If it is “delicious” to him, he might already have more of the answer than not, which he may realize (especially after he reads Alma 32). He may still hold them to be imaginary, but in a spiritually-appealing way, especially after a second spiritual witness.

I believe that all aspects of the gospel necessitate that we all live and do the things that have been written about all the children of God.

Excellent points.

In retrospect I could have answered more simply.

When @Wade Englund asked

"Does it matter whether the action is imagined or actual? "

I could have just said:

"Yes but with your natural mind you cannot know which it is, and so we live by faith that it is. So ultimately it doesn't matter."

What we learn from Alma 32 is that if the belief is "delicious " then it is true.

Deliciousness is the criteria for a spiritual belief not objective evidence

Edited March 30, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Excellent points.

In retrospect I could have answered more simply.

When @Wade EnglundEnglundEngluEnglunEngEnglundEnglundEngl asked

"Does it matter whether the action is imagined or actual? "

I could have just said:

"Yes but with your natural mind you cannot know which it is, and so we live by faith that it is. So ultimately it doesn't matter."

What we learn from Alma 32 is that if the belief is "delicious " then it is true.

Deliciousness is the criteria for a spiritual belief not objective evidence

Note perhaps glitch: I could not edit out that repetition above.

Sometimes it’s good to break it down further just as you did.

We discover that the seed (the word of God) is good and true because our feelings associated with its sprouting and growth -- swelling motions, enlargement, enlightenment -- are delicious to us. We know it is true, but it is only a seed. In one way our knowledge is perfect (Alma 32:34) and in another way it is just as imperfect (verse 35)! We need to stick with it until we have a tree and its fruit, then we come to know greater things than the trueness of the seed.

I’d like to tie this back to the driving force of perception. We need to perceive that there is a word of God to even test, however small it seems to be. Some deem fiction to be “small” and history to be “big” but I think part of Alma’s point is that it’s perfectly legit to go with small.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/29/2019 at 11:36 AM, clarkgoble said:

Well this is where the pragmatic maxim matters. You have to ask how you would measure things. If you can't measure a difference then it's a difference without a difference. Where I think Peirce differs from some (such as say the logical positivists) is that he thinks it useful and fruitful to try and figure out differences even if right now we can't measure the difference in a reliable fashion. So, to use an example, Rorty does this in The Mirrors of Nature with certain questions about neurology. How do we tell the difference between a subjective account of pain and certain neurons firing. He notes that right now we can't and more or less just applies the pragmatic maxim. However I think one can go too far with that - such as the eliminative materialists like the Churchlands did.

I know that is what you often post about Peirce- the utility of the possibility of something happening in the future which would make a statement more foundationalist and therefore in principle "verifiable" and I have criticized that in other posts pointing out that therefore pigs can fly because at some point in the future it may be possible to alter their genetics and give them wings and allow them to fly.

Regarding the problem of reductive physicalism about mental states (the belief that descriptions of mental states can be reduced to descriptions of brain activity) it is clear to most that Nagel has pretty much exploded that notion through logic and linguistic analysis as being a semantic problem.

"Bukowski sees a red car" cannot be reduced to a physical description like "Bukowski shows specific brain activity in his brain at location abc demonstrating electro-chemical activity xyz in neurons mno " since clearly such a statement says nothing about the "red car" contained in the original assertion.

Similarly logically first person statements cannot be made logically equivalent to third person statements because they are from a different point of view.   "I have a pain in my toe" different  than "He has a pain in his toe"

But yet again what does this have to do with the Book of Mormon??

I think Alma 32 concedes that such judgments of veracity in spiritual matters depends upon what is "delicious" to the individual, and that cannot possibly be a historical judgement

I cannot understand why it is so hard to just take Alma 32 at what it says and drop all this historicity confusion.

Add too it Moroni 10 and James 1, and another dozen scriptures implying the same thing and I think that looking to historicity really misses the point.

[Wade Englund]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

When @Wade Englund asked

"Does it matter whether the action is imagined or actual? "

I could have just said:

"Yes but with your natural mind you cannot know which it is, and so we live by faith that it is. So ultimately it doesn't matter."

Last night I dreamed that I completed my Ministering visits for the month. Since it ultimately doesn't matter if I imagined doing something or actually did it....

Tonight I think I will dream about feeding all the hungry throughout the world. It will be good to wake up in the morning with contentment that starvation has ceased.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Joshua Valentine]

On 2/22/2019 at 8:33 AM, Gray said:

 

 

On 2/22/2019 at 1:09 PM, Gray said:

The Jedi were Sith all along!

Admittedly a quick net search:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
—President J. Reuben Clark

“He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.”
—Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, Pages 188-189

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [first] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Each of us has to face the matter — either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that’s exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That’s our claim. That’s where we stand, and that’s where we fall, if we fall. But we don’t. We just stand secure in that faith.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church…”

“…It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

“Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those.

“I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically.”
—Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” Liahona, June 1996

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Last night I dreamed that I completed my Ministering visits for the month. Since it ultimately doesn't matter if I imagined doing something or actually did it....

Tonight I think I will dream about feeding all the hungry throughout the world. It will be good to wake up in the morning with contentment that starvation has ceased.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No you are not getting it. 

The question is about whether or not you know that I did my home teaching 20 years ago in October, and you have decided to follow my example.

Of course I did it so you should do your ministering as well. I provided a perfect example for you.

Obviously you cannot know if I did it or if I did not do it. 

But of course you should do yours anyway, not based on someone's alleged history.

And you see how that's different?

 

[Wade Englund]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But you BELIEVE it is a real murder- and therefore it really HAS more impact than if it was just a story.   Yet that is because of your belief it is "real" (perhaps)

This is essentially all I am sating--though I don't consider the killing of Laban to be murder.

Belief that the primary characters in the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible were "real" and they "really" did what was claimed of them, increases the potency of their stories as compared with believing they were imaginary, regardless that it can't be known or proven either way.  To me, this gives reason to to believe in their "reality."

To take this one step further, I created a thought experiment to test my hypothesis.  Suppose that were I and everyone else in the Church to have never seen, in person or in photos or videos, at any time throughout our lives, any of the  Latter-day General Authorities,  but instead we were shown various animated logo figures with synthesized voices delivering General Conference talks, articles in Church publications, etc.  Or, in short, there was no way that we could know or prove that they they are "real."

Would this make a difference in our becoming? Would it matter whether we believed they were real or not?

I figure that the Spiritual witness of the truth of the principles they taught and exemplified would be no less confirmed, and would be reinforced through application of Alma 32.

What about priesthood lines of authority? Could there be an issue there? Maybe. Maybe not.

However, what struck me as an important point of consideration is the nature of the connection with the General Authorities,  Could I literally bond with animated logo characters regardless of the verity of their message? 

For me, It would be worlds apart from the "becoming" bond I have felt after having seen some of the General Authorities in person, having personally spoken with them, developed friendships with some of their children and grand children, watched them year after year on TV and internet and so forth.  When I recall things like the voice of Pres. Kimball,  the pathos on the face of Elder McKonkie during his last talk, the loving demeanor of Pres. McKay, the touching actions of Pres. Benson, the good humor of President Hinckley, the charitable mannerism of Pres. Monson, and on and on, I feel a literal kinship, and mourn their deaths as though they were one of my own. I feel linked together with them in a "real" brotherhood and priesthood and family of God. Such a connection can't help but have an elevating impact on my "becoming" compared with what I would feel for animated logo characters or other imaginary characters like Santa Clause, Superman, Samwise Gamgee,  or even Atticus Finch, Reb Tevye, etc. 

But, that may just be me.

Granted, I have not seen the literal person of Nephi or Alma or Moroni, etc. However, through the spirit, their words have spoken to me from the dust, and I mourn the challenges they faced and the troubles they felt for the wickedness of their people. I feel almost as near of a bond and connection to them as I do and have felt with modern prophets and apostles. I can't wait for the time on the other side when I may get the chance to chat with Peter about what it was like to walk on water, or learn what went through Abinidi's mind when he suffered death by fire, or converse with Noah and the Brother of Jared and Nephi about the boats they each built, or query Moroni where he stored all the records, and ask Alma whereabouts he lived in the Americas or elsewhere, and on and on. 

Again, something to consider--not that you may disagree.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

  

[Wade Englund]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No you are not getting it. 

The question is about whether or not you know that I did my home teaching 20 years ago in October, and you have decided to follow my example.

Of course I did it so you should do your ministering as well. I provided a perfect example for you.

Obviously you cannot know if I did it or if I did not do it. 

But of course you should do yours anyway, not based on someone's alleged history.

And you see how that's different?

 

 

I get what I meant by "imagined." Evidently, it is different from what you had in mind.

And, I suspect that where my thinking was headed regarding the imperative, is likely in a different direction, if not dimension from where your thinking was headed.

Got to love the English language, though not my ;linguistic skills.

Were I a gambling man, I would bet that while we seem to be talking past each other, we would see that our minds are likely in near complete agreement were we to somehow land on the same page. .

Nevertheless, my brain has been teased, my thoughts expanded, and my soul enriched by the otherwise confounded exchange. [Thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

This is essentially all I am sating--though I don't consider the killing of Laban to be murder.

Belief that the primary characters in the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible were "real" and they "really" did what was claimed of them, increases the potency of their stories as compared with believing they were imaginary, regardless that it can't be known or proven either way.  To me, this gives reason to to believe in their "reality."

To take this one step further, I created a thought experiment to test my hypothesis.  Suppose that were I and everyone else in the Church to have never seen, in person or in photos or videos, at any time throughout our lives, any of the  Latter-day General Authorities,  but instead we were shown various animated logo figures with synthesized voices delivering General Conference talks, articles in Church publications, etc.  Or, in short, there was no way that we could know or prove that they they are "real."

Would this make a difference in our becoming? Would it matter whether we believed they were real or not?

I figure that the Spiritual witness of the truth of the principles they taught and exemplified would be no less confirmed, and would be reinforced through application of Alma 32.

What about priesthood lines of authority? Could there be an issue there? Maybe. Maybe not.

However, what struck me as an important point of consideration is the nature of the connection with the General Authorities,  Could I literally bond with animated logo characters regardless of the verity of their message? 

For me, It would be worlds apart from the "becoming" bond I have felt after having seen some of the General Authorities in person, having personally spoken with them, developed friendships with some of their children and grand children, watched them year after year on TV and internet and so forth.  When I recall things like the voice of Pres. Kimball,  the pathos on the face of Elder McKonkie during his last talk, the loving demeanor of Pres. McKay, the touching actions of Pres. Benson, the good humor of President Hinckley, the charitable mannerism of Pres. Monson, and on and on, I feel a literal kinship, and mourn their deaths as though they were one of my own. I feel linked together with them in a "real" brotherhood and priesthood and family of God. Such a connection can't help but have an elevating impact on my "becoming" compared with what I would feel for animated logo characters or other imaginary characters like Santa Clause, Superman, Samwise Gamgee,  or even Atticus Finch, Reb Tevye, etc. 

But, that may just be me.

Granted, I have not seen the literal person of Nephi or Alma or Moroni, etc. However, through the spirit, their words have spoken to me from the dust, and I mourn the challenges they faced and the troubles they felt for the wickedness of their people. I feel almost as near of a bond and connection to them as I do and have felt with modern prophets and apostles. I can't wait for the time on the other side when I may get the chance to chat with Peter about what it was like to walk on water, or learn what went through Abinidi's mind when he suffered death by fire, or converse with Noah and the Brother of Jared and Nephi about the boats they each built, or query Moroni where he stored all the records, and ask Alma whereabouts he lived in the Americas or elsewhere, and on and on. 

Again, something to consider--not that you may disagree.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

  

Quite honestly, I am the person you are describing here.

I am a former atheist who joined the church 40 years ago with the same philosophical stand I have now. I had nearly a master's in philosophy from secular universities when I joined.

Never met a general authority in my life. for me they were all cardboard cutouts.

The fact that they were old guys speaking from what I thought was a hick town in Utah was actually a detriment to my philosophical snobbery.

I mean guys in Rome wearing little skull caps and some of the oldest cathedrals in Christianity had a lot more clout for me at the time even though I was still an atheist.

Utah? Bunch of sons of farmers? I had traveled the world lived in New York City and Los Angeles most of my life and my ego knew no bounds

And yet Moroni 10 and Alma hit me like a spiritual two by four 

To each his own!

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

 

Admittedly a quick net search:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
—President J. Reuben Clark

“He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.”
—Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, Pages 188-189

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [first] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Each of us has to face the matter — either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that’s exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That’s our claim. That’s where we stand, and that’s where we fall, if we fall. But we don’t. We just stand secure in that faith.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church…”

“…It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

“Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those.

“I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically.”
—Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” Liahona, June 1996

By Jove, I think you've got it! 

However, I would contend that personal truth can be harmed by investigation, because people can do a poor job at investigating or draw invalid conclusions based on incomplete information. Putting too much faith on incomplete information can draw people away from the truth. I think one thing that MBukowski is contending or would contend is that people tend to overly rely on scientific evidence and conclusions which scholars draw from it to make their own conclusions about what is true. He is saying that we can know its truth from its spiritual import - if the seed grows. He is saying that in the end that is the most important truth.

This story gets so oft repeated in our modern day. With the rise of the theory of evolution and archaeology has come a rise in secularism. But science is limited in the valid conclusions it can draw. Where does the Bible say Adam was the first Homo sapien? What if man is a Sumerian word meaning companion, and Adam was the first companion of God created from the dust of the earth like everyone else? What if the story of Adam and Eve is more about things of God's house/temple than a history lesson? Have all the people then been led astray by their interpretation and conclusions?

Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist, has said there is no evidence of a Davidic kingdom. Does that mean there was not one? Archaeology has since uncovered evidence there was a ruler named David. It has uncovered seals of the very names of palace servants mentioned in the Bible in layers dating back to the ninth century BC. At what point may Israel Finkelstein admit he was wrong? At what point do we find enough evidence to satisfy him that there did live a David who ruled a kingdom up to Syria? Should we disbelieve in Yeshua because archaeology has not found convincing evidence? Why is the eyewitness of the Bible not good enough? If archaeology has uncovered evidence consistent with the Book of Mormon would you believe? Do you demand that evidence before you can believe like Israel Finkelstein?

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

 

Admittedly a quick net search:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
—President J. Reuben Clark

“He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.”
—Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, Pages 188-189

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [first] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Each of us has to face the matter — either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that’s exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That’s our claim. That’s where we stand, and that’s where we fall, if we fall. But we don’t. We just stand secure in that faith.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church…”

“…It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

“Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those.

“I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically.”
—Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” Liahona, June 1996

It appears that you don't understand that there are different contexts speaking about truth and falsity

Silly me. I was just going by Moroni and Alma 32 and the temple recommended review.

Guess I will have to leave the church even though I know it's true. 

Thank goodness general authorities are not philosophers.

So now evolution is out the window there was a worldwide flood donkeys talk and the sun stood still for Joshua.

And Prophets are infallible even though they contradict other prophets.

For some reason I don't think they meant to imply any of that.

That's what happens when you take things out of their contexts

 

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Joshua Valentine]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It appears that you don't understand that there are different contexts speaking about truth and falsity

Silly me. I was just going by Moroni and Alma 32 and the temple recommended review.

Guess I will have to leave the church even though I know it's true. 

Thank goodness general authorities are not philosophers.

So now evolution is out the window there was a worldwide flood donkeys talk and the sun stood still for Joshua.

And Prophets are infallible even though they contradict other prophets.

For some reason I don't think they meant to imply any of that.

That's what happens when you take things out of their contexts

 

 

Obviously we are not going into detail here - especially given the meme - these quotes are better, but not a whole lot better than the meme. But context or no they are evidence of at least not nuanced presentation.

While I am sympathetic to part of the idea that ¨thank goodness [no one is a] philosopher¨ - does it have to be all philosopher or no philosopher?

Now let´s not go around ¨telling me what I believe¨ mfbukowski 😜 Especially from a just a list of apparent black and white thinking

This line about prophets, I do admit, seems to be a burden of confusion in the LDS church.

I find context does not seem to help when you do refer to it - see the discussion about Nelson´s context in Name Correction vs. Continued Error

and one more thing, much more important,...

[Joshua Valentine]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Quite honestly, I am the person you are describing here.

I am a former atheist who joined the church 40 years ago with the same philosophical stand I have now. I had nearly a master's in philosophy from secular universities when I joined.

Never met a general authority in my life. for me they were all cardboard cutouts.

The fact that they were old guys speaking from what I thought was a hick town in Utah was actually a detriment to my philosophical snobbery.

I mean guys in Rome wearing little skull caps and some of the oldest cathedrals in Christianity had a lot more clout for me at the time even though I was still an atheist.

Utah? Bunch of sons of farmers? I had traveled the world lived in New York City and Los Angeles most of my life and my ego knew no bounds

And yet Moroni 10 and Alma hit me like a spiritual two by four 

To each his own!

 

This is great, mfbukowski.  It´s nice to hear something specific and personal about your background and what brought you to your current belief and affiliation.

Do we have a thread anywhere (maybe the Social Hall) where posters have actually posted their personal stories of coming to faith?

Thanks again, mfbukowski, for the personal story. 

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Now let´s not go around ¨telling me what I believe¨ mfbukowski 😜 Especially from a just a list of apparent black and white thinking

Well I definitely could have misinterpreted you. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Joshua Valentine said:

While I am sympathetic to part of the idea that ¨thank goodness [no one is a] philosopher¨ - does it have to be all philosopher or no philosopher?

 

When one is trained as a philosopher it promotes a certain way of seeing the world depending on the school of philosophy to which one is drawn and that creates a context for everything eventually.

I have followed the James Dewey Rorty Wittgenstein,  Kuhn Habermas and Gadamer path and their German "ancestors" Kant and Hegel and the boys in phenomenology 

Been thinking this way for 50 years and the dang stuff works great for religious beliefs with the right interpretation

So no you do not have to be a philosopher but most folks don't see the world this way.  

You actually have to believe that knowing God perfectly is unspeakable and not representable in language, and that it is pure folly to get hung up on words about God.

If you want wisdom ask the Boss himself and he will tell you all about it- wordlessly. 

Even the scriptures tell you that but no one listens.  

On the other hand you have St. Theresa of Avila, and mystics everywhere, from Asia to the ancient Americas.  Ever heard of "koans"?

The key is understanding that all philosophical problems are about language because.... wait for it.... it is all we have to talk with.

It's like living under water and thinking we are on dry land.  We are surrounded and immersed in language and folks actually think they can get outside of it to dry land- to what is "beyond language"

You can do it only by avoiding putting what is unspeakable into words.

Like Alma 32 says.

Edited March 31, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Wade Englund]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

To each his own!

 

Well, at least we agree about becoming....LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

On 3/29/2019 at 10:16 AM, clarkgoble said:

For instance what comes to our awareness is always preprocessed. So in perceptions clearly there's an aspect of what we are doing to. Maybe it's not quite the way Kant put it in an idealized fashion. But something is pre-structuring our experience and not always in a consistent fashion. My sense is that's what you wish to emphasize. Yet at the same time there are things we are doing and we're not always doing them in a fashion we're aware of. I think that matters a lot too.

Where I differ is that I don't think we can just dismiss everything but our talk. I think some distinctions are very fruitful. And to use a term I know you don't like but I'd say they're stable in how they are fruitful.

How do we know it is pre processed in by what? How could such an assertion be shown to be true or false? Or even useful?

Dismiss everything but our talk?

How do we talk about what we are dismissing or not dismissing without talking?

At what does Clark actually think about these things? And how does Clark account for the truth value of personal revelation?

I ask you directly and use your name because typically your great knowledge of the history of philosophy would outweigh your discussion of what yourself think.

I would love to hear more about how Clark structures his personal world, without commentaries on others.

Perhaps I should use more arguments from authority but I don't I think they make me more credible they just make me look more like I've read a lot but not digested it.

Maybe that's the wrong approach but that's how I see it at the moment.

Edited April 1, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Joshua Valentine]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

When one is trained as a philosopher it promotes a certain way of seeing the world depending on the school of philosophy to which one is drawn and that creates a context for everything eventually.

I have followed the James Dewey Rorty Wittgenstein,  Kuhn Habermas and Gadamer path and their German "ancestors" Kant and Hegel and the boys in phenomenology 

Been thinking this way for 50 years and the dang stuff works great for religious beliefs with the right interpretation

So no you do not have to be a philosopher but most folks don't see the world this way.  

You actually have to believe that knowing God perfectly is unspeakable and not representable in language, and that it is pure folly to get hung up on words about God.

If you want wisdom ask the Boss himself and he will tell you all about it- wordlessly. 

Even the scriptures tell you that but no one listens.  

On the other hand you have St. Theresa of Avila, and mystics everywhere, from Asia to the ancient Americas.  Ever heard of "koans"?

The key is understanding that all philosophical problems are about language because.... wait for it.... it is all we have to talk with.

It's like living under water and thinking we are on dry land.  We are surrounded and immersed in language and folks actually think they can get outside of it to dry land- to what is "beyond language"

You can do it only by avoiding putting what is unspeakable into words.

Like Alma 32 says.

While there is much that is interesting here in light of the LDS Church, I will let that go and respond with more important things:

There´s some quote somewhere, I think, that says something to the effect that to try to represent God with anything is to try to represent God with what is not God and so to try to represent God (not just in image - wood, stone - idol-like) even with words, which are also not God, is to create something that is not God.  While this is not in itself wrong, it is the mistaking of what is made in material or in word for the God That Actually Exists wherein folly (and idolatry) lie.

As you said, mfbukowski: 

Quote

You actually have to believe that knowing God perfectly is unspeakable and not representable in language, and that it is pure folly to get hung up on words about God.

Many people may think that worshiping idols was wrong because it was the worship of ¨other gods¨, that it´s wrong because they are worshiping other gods (whether they exist or not)- but what they may miss is that worshiping anything other than the God That Actually Exists (even the God we think we ¨know¨) is worshiping an ¨other god¨, something not Actually God, and thus is idolatry and foolish. [Thank God for mercy!]

Lastly, I remember discussing with an LDS missionary his stated belief that God may lead people to other religions temporarily in preparation for eventually joining the true church in the LDS Church and my challenging him on if he believes that all other religions are preparation for his religion how does he know to stop at his church with the LDS Church and that the LDS Church is not simply another religion on the path to the ¨true one¨. At one point he asked me what I suggested he do, I told him that, rather than pray to the ¨LDS God¨ or any other God based on his knowledge or belief, he should pray to the ¨actual God¨ or ¨the God that actually exists¨ and ask for mercy and grace and help to learn true things and to believe true things about and to have faith in the Actual God and about the Actual God´s purposes for humanity and the missionary, himself.

I believe this is a practical outworking of the recognition that we don´t know God perfectly in total or even in any one respect. And something like you said:

Quote

If you want wisdom ask the Boss himself and he will tell you all about it- wordlessly. 

 

 

Again, thanks so much for your open and personal reply, mfbukowski.