Humanism and the Ideal Perfected Human

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 That is not the case.

And we blatantly do not believe in God solve all our problems. Unfortunately he leaves those up to us. I mean that is in the most fundamental story of all the Garden of Eden.

What they reject is the traditional God, the same god Nietzsche rejected as a supernatural entity

They do not reject the IDEAL HUMAN as a concept, in fact every statement they make about what humans ought to be reflects such a model as an ideal

Well, then, have fun convincing humanists that the ideal human concept solves the problems that a God assumption carries.  

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 We do not believe that God is Supernatural either, but a natural being

I'd be curious if we asked random Mormons if they believed in a Supernatural God, what the results would be.  Many, if not most would likely say "yes".  Who has observed the natural God? 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Pragmatically in one's life both Concepts FUNCTION the same way to give one an image of a higher being upon which to model one's life practices.

The Kingdom of Heaven is within.

Every culture on Earth has its concept of an ideal being upon which it constructs its image of God, or no need for a god. Buddhism for example encourages the individual to become enlightened through the process of meditation. The ideal human is a person who has achieved that status.

For what it's worth humanists also encourage mindfulness meditation.

For Catholics the ideal is to be a person who has emulated Christ perfectly.

Similarly for us we can become exalted, or an ideal person by following the gospel.

Philosophically every concept of "good" is based upon a scale of behaviors thought to be virtuous.

Humanists are no different and have their scale of what is thought to be virtuous.

I am seeing humanism as a religion just like any other regardless of what they call it.

Fundamentalist humanists will see it in an immature way without even recognizing that they have created their own god.

It was my personal recognition that marxists had created their own God that caused me to understand religion.

Creating a system of Ethics automatically creates a system of what is regarded as good which has a maximum good built into the system.

You have to take it up a level of abstraction instead of Simply listening to the words. You have to go to the function and meaning of the words and how the words create a belief.

Look at the FUNCTIONS of belief in one's life, not just the beliefs.

Seeing that way for example Buddhism is a religion that brings one exaltation, yet without a conception of God.

All religions always end in a concept of peace, where human strife has ended, one way or another.

Even atheists believe in Oblivion, and have as much evidence for that as we do exaltation. 

Well, alright.  I'm maintain my position.  You'll likely get next to nowhere with Mormons and self proclaimed humanists in your effort of harmonization.  Most will likely balk at the outset and be left wondering why you are trying to smash them together.  

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, then, have fun convincing humanists that the ideal human concept solves the problems that a God assumption carries.  

I'd be curious if we asked random Mormons if they believed in a Supernatural God, what the results would be.  Many, if not most would likely say "yes".  Who has observed the natural God? 

Well, alright.  I'm maintain my position.  You'll likely get next to nowhere with Mormons and self proclaimed humanists in your effort of harmonization.  Most will likely balk at the outset and be left wondering why you are trying to smash them together.  

Regarding the ideal human concept, I would say Rorty was there but he eschewed clergy.  No comment on that one.

Who has observed the natural God?  What do you need a class in Mormonism 101?  The only God who could be observable at least in principle is a "natural" immanent God, not one who is transcendent and is a amorphous cloud throughout the universe.  One who is not an ex-nihilo God but one who builds worlds from existing natural matter.  

Remember this is an IDEA of what a natural God would have to be.   Here is a comment about Rorty- the famous "lucid atheist" and this is EXACTLY the tradition that needs development, imo.  Remember I am still LDS and will be forever- this view just needs to be dragged out and examined

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/05/how-richard-rorty-found-religion

Quote

But in recent books and essays Rorty has expressed the hope that “romantic polytheism” will come to serve as America’s new religious center. Rorty says that he now agrees with his sometime critic, Michael Sandel, who wrote in Democracy’s Discontents that it may never be possible to separate morality and religion entirely, since doing so often “generates its own disenchantment.” Rather, liberal societies must admit that, according to Rorty’s reading of John Rawls, they create “new moralities and new religions.” Despite predicting in his earlier writings that religion would one day wither away, Rorty now proposes a new public religious faith. 

His religious turn became an open possibility as far back as the 1970s, when he forsook rationalistic analytic philosophy for neopragmatism. Rorty has come to realize that what pragmatists like himself and John Dewey offer is a vision for public life in which democracy itself serves as “a metaphysic of the relation of man and his experience in nature.” By so defining democracy, pragmatists offer something that satisfies Paul Tillich’s definition of a religion as that which we designate as our “symbol of ultimate concern.” And Rorty admits that his own philosophical purposes are “ultimately spiritual,” since “the adoption of my view would be a real change in people’s self-image.” 

Following his pragmatist mentor John Dewey, Rorty believes that we might usefully substitute faith in human potential for retrograde faith in a benevolent God. In the essay “Religious Faith, Intellectual Responsibility, and Romance,” Rorty criticizes the other American pragmatist luminary, William James, for getting stuck in what Dewey called the “second stage” of religious consciousness. James still believed that aligning ourselves with “a power that is not ourselves will do unimaginably vast good.” Rorty wishes that James had reached the “third stage” of religious consciousness, in which humans put their “faith in the future possibilities of moral humans, a faith which is hard to distinguish from love for, and hope for, the human community. I shall call this fuzzy overlap of faith, hope, and love ‘romance.’” (He also calls it “social hope,” “solidarity,” and “a religion of democracy.”) 

Neopragmatists of a Rortian stripe (not to be confused with the Jamesian sort) offer what amounts to an alternative picture of man and his place in the universe ” one that, as Rorty has lately begun to acknowledge, does resemble religious faith, as it fills the void of meaning that relation with “God” or “Truth” once filled. Rorty has known the call of intense and ultimately spiritual yearnings. From his teenage years on, Rorty has sought a way to reconcile a yearning for the transcendent and sublime with a desire for human solidarity. With his recent discovery of romantic polytheism, he has finally found a way to satisfy this longing. 

"Romantic Polytheism" is what I am looking at here where we run of the mill humans can become godlike- part of the "poly" in polytheism.

If it was good enough for Dewey and James and Rorty- why not for a church who already believes in a God unified with us through love ("romantic") and which then teaches that we too can become gods?

I am not smashing anything together- I am discussing two concepts that need unification and I am not the first to suggest that.

[mfbukowski]

Here is a review of Rorty's book "The Future of Religion" that I found on Amazon.   As far as I know this is just a random buyer who bought and reviewed the book.  I am providing here his name and the link to the review.

I found this review appropriate for the discussion.

https://www.amazon.com/Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134959

 

Quote

 

Jon Fobes

5.0 out of 5 starsNEW MAP FOR THE REALMS OF BELIEF

February 16, 2005

Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase

Not long ago an Amish teen from Chardon, Ohio, was killed when he tried to dislodge a sagging power line tangled in the wheels of his horse-drawn buggy. Such tragedies highlight the gaps between a faith-based existence and life in the modern world and reveal that we need to be mindful of how the other half lives. Philosophers Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo believe that the secular and faith-based worlds are becoming irrevocably estranged. This is what I take from my reading of "The Future of Religion," edited and with an introduction by Santiago Zabala. I think this slim volume of two essays and a question-and-answer section will be open to a wide variety of readings; this reaction is only one interpretation.

Rorty and Vattimo believe a drastic split is imminent between modern, secular life and traditional belief in mainstream religion. And they want to build a bridge between these worlds, to save something important to many people: belief in something larger than themselves. The only problem is that the religious life they suggest -- an interior life of private meaning or the "nihilism" of Christianity -- is probably either incomprehensible or offensive to most ordinary churchgoers. But you decide. I'm already on board.

One way to grasp "The Future of Religion" is through a quote from philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: "There are no facts, only interpretations." But the authors want Nietzsche to add this phrase: "... and this is an interpretation." This means that the authors believe our era is poised to grasp the relative nature of all beliefs, a theory that echoes Isaiah Berlin's idea that there is "no Archimedean point" outside ourselves, our history, our language or our concepts where we can stand to achieve an objective viewpoint toward all that we claim to know or believe. It also relates to Ludwig Wittgenstein's idea that "all testing, all confirmation and disconfirmation of a hypothesis takes place already within a system," and that we are not taught truth but, "judgments and their connection with other judgments."

To the best of our knowledge the burning questions about "the truth of the matter" have reference to nothing more than our personal background or shared history. Understanding this concept strips away the deadly energy that fuels so many of today's conflicts, or at least it would if it were widely understood. And it means that all the pressing issues and heated debates about science and religion -- each of which wants to be the sole source of ultimate truth for humankind -- may some day be seen as nothing more than a symptom of our inadequacies. Rorty and Vattimo help us transcend such facile debates through an understanding of the finer points of pragmatism and hermeneutics, and this is where the typical reader is likely to furrow his brow. Enlightenment is a tough sell.

While I get more inspiration from Rorty's views, Vattimo will shock the churchgoer with his belief that the modern secular world isn't different from Christianity but the very culmination of it. He believes that when God incarnated himself in Jesus, he basically turned the world over to us lock, stock and barrel. Moreover, Vattimo believes the ultimate message of Christianity dissolves all notions of objectivity, eroding the very claims most believers cite as proof. Religion looks very different from this perspective. "This is not your father's Oldsmobile!"

Let's get back to that tangled buggy and its relationship to our American way of life. Rorty and Vattimo promote their views as being crucial to democracy, and this is where they run head-on into President George W. Bush and his faith-based presidency. Rorty and Vattimo seem to be saying that fundamentalism and democracy can't long endure together. Traditional religion depends on fixed and final truths; democracy is built on innovation and diversity -- hence, the disconnect.

We know that when the church bans same-sex marriage or women in the clergy, some people -- those with one foot firmly in the open society -- back off, the same way they would avoid a power line in tangled in their wheels. And they may decide to leave the buggy where it is and hitch a ride on something better. While it might take a while to grasp all the wonderful insights in "The Future of Religion," once you catch on, you'll know how to avoid the shock of transition when moving from one realm of belief to another.

It's a good thing to know.

 

 

[Ahab]

On 9/1/2019 at 5:12 PM, mfbukowski said:

So where's the beef with Humanism?

I think it's just a matter of interpretation, or a lack of more explanation.  All anyone needs to understand the way things really are is enough of an explanation in their own terms that they can understand.  Well, along with a desire to understand it.

It's not good to just deny things that really are, though, so when someone says something like "there is no God" they should understand what the true God really is before they deny their own existence.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/2/2019 at 10:36 AM, MiserereNobis said:

One more point. LDS doctrines and practices do change, but that is based upon revelation from God, not rational argument. For example, the ban against the blacks and the priesthood was lifted, but not because of the reasoned arguments that all races are equal. In fact, the lifting of the ban occurred roughly a decade after most people, including courts, had accepted rational arguments for the equality of races.

The ban itself was not instituted with revelation OR rational argument really anyway.  I believe its causes were mostly political 

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2015/rethinking-the-mormon-racial-story

 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/2/2019 at 11:20 AM, CV75 said:

Yes, if we're looking for parallels, there are thousands. The "beef" would be picking on only one or two identifiable exceptions, so I zeroed in on adherents voluntarily making covenants with the author or exemplar of their chosen manifesto. Is there a non-religious manifesto which requires this? Who are non-religious humanists taught to emulate by personal covenant with him?

A second might be over what Joseph Smith observed: “a religion [or an "-ism"] that does not require the [voluntary and covenanted ] sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation [i.e. to meet aspirations delineated in the manifesto].” Is there a non-religious version of a manifesto that requires the sacrifice of all things?

We do as a society have those.   I suppose you never had to worry about a draft notice. 

Faith in our country can be quite a test.  The other possible choice was Canada.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/2/2019 at 3:59 PM, MiserereNobis said:

This happens to non-LDS believers all the time. Catholics have loads of stories about guidance and miracles and manifestations and on and on. I myself have experienced "whisperings" and inspirations about things that I am not actively praying about, so the LDS gift of the Holy Ghost must be something more than just that, or else I have got it  

Having been on both sides of the fence, I agree that the distinction may nearly be without a difference.  I think if there is a difference it is because the doctrine itself causes us to try to have the HG with us "constantly".  It's simply on our mind more, and on our inner "to do list"

It's kind of right there next door to "have a prayer in your heart constantly" and to me is a kind of mindful meditation.  When one learns to observe oneself in thought, it is kind of like that idea of "constant communion" with that other "ideal self" who is watching the antics of the "carnal self" and seeing the follies and praiseworthy acts as they are happening.

That is the ideal of mindfulness- a detachment from losing oneself in thoughts and instead seeing them go by as if watching a movie with you as the subject.   The uberself  is ideally constantly in charge.

To me that is the same idea as the "Gift" of the HG.

But both rely practice.  Functionally they are the same as far as I see it.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/3/2019 at 1:26 PM, stemelbow said:

Oh no.  I don't think so.  But being a divine human puts Christ and God in a place outside of our human experience, for Mormons, and thus have all the answers--the very answers that humans on their own can't acquire.  That is at odds with humanism.  As I said, Mormons can't see that humans can find the answer without divine help, else they'll be considered too proud--those condemned in scripture as not needing God at all.  

Don't know if I answered this.  This is the short version.  Christ outside our experience?  Not for millions.  Ask Joseph Smith if God and Christ are outside our human experience.  Also ask the humanist, William James.  Religious experience IS part of human nature

https://csrs.nd.edu/assets/59930/williams_1902.pdf

 

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We do as a society have those.   I suppose you never had to worry about a draft notice. 

Faith in our country can be quite a test.  The other possible choice was Canada.

Yes, our society certainly buys into the concept of sacrificing lives, voluntarily and under command, for freedom (which is greater than peace, though peace, prosperity, etc. are the intended aims of freedom and would be nice). I'm not sure if that is specifically codified or implied anywhere such as the oath of enlistment, but military law does punish cowardice and disobedience. And we still allow for conscientious objection. My question was whether this concept of sacrifice (including property, conscience, etc.) is included in any humanist manifesto or (non-religious constitution, if we're including countries).

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Having been on both sides of the fence, I agree that the distinction may nearly be without a difference.  I think if there is a difference it is because the doctrine itself causes us to try to have the HG with us "constantly".  It's simply on our mind more, and on our inner "to do list"

It's kind of right there next door to "have a prayer in your heart constantly" and to me is a kind of mindful meditation.  When one learns to observe oneself in thought, it is kind of like that idea of "constant communion" with that other "ideal self" who is watching the antics of the "carnal self" and seeing the follies and praiseworthy acts as they are happening.

That is the ideal of mindfulness- a detachment from losing oneself in thoughts and instead seeing them go by as if watching a movie with you as the subject.   The uberself  is ideally constantly in charge.

To me that is the same idea as the "Gift" of the HG.

But both rely practice.  Functionally they are the same as far as I see it.

 

Being conscientious in thought isn't necessarily the same thing as having the Holy Ghost with you, though, just as having the light of Christ isn't the same thing as having the Holy Ghost as a second (or another) witness.

Having or feeling the "power" of the Holy Ghost may be the same thing, though.  My wife and I were talking about that just the other day and it was agreed that someone feeling the power of the Holy Ghost isn't necessarily feeling that directly from the Holy Ghost, since angels also speak through the power of the Holy  Ghost, and so can we, sometimes.  It's just that the Holy Ghost operates with a certain type of power, and anyone else who operates by that same type of power can be said to be operating with the power of the Holy Ghost.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes although having more female voices involved in the judgment process even if not the actual judgment can alleviate many of those issues. (If they are listened to) So I don't think that's the major issue. However even if women were involved and listened to that wouldn't resolve the fundamental structural issue feminists are angered by.

I agree and in that vein I have noticed the presence of Relief Society in ward and stake meetings- ward council and stake council most notably, is an improvement but not yet where we need to be.  What is also needed is more training for sisters in leadership and they seem to need to be trained to be more assertive in these meetings.  As men, we grow into leadership by "learning the ropes" of procedure in leadership meetings, and how to phrase both praise and complaints about certain programs etc. in learning the "unspoken order of things"

I see this in men newly called to such positions- like high council for example which is typically all male except in a stake council situation.  When the sisters arrive they are more differential toward the men and less likely to speak frankly than the men in addressing programs or ideas that simply are not working.  I have worked with Relief Society sisters and encouraged them to "speak their minds" at these meetings and yet get phone calls later where they are willing to speak one on one but not so in meetings.  In meetings they tend to be overly polite, as I suppose they have been trained to be.

The traditions run deep and the need for better communication in meetings is crucial.

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Being conscientious in thought isn't necessarily the same thing as having the Holy Ghost with you, though, just as having the light of Christ isn't the same thing as having the Holy Ghost as a second (or another) witness.

 

No, but it IS the "conduit"- the wiring if you will or radio frequency - required to receive inspiration.  You cannot feel the spirit if the internal "TV" is tuned to the wrong channel.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree and in that vein I have noticed the presence of Relief Society in ward and stake meetings- ward council and stake council most notably, is an improvement but not yet where we need to be.  What is also needed is more training for sisters in leadership and they seem to need to be trained to be more assertive in these meetings.  As men, we grow into leadership by "learning the ropes" of procedure in leadership meetings, and how to phrase both praise and complaints about certain programs etc. in learning the "unspoken order of things"

I see this in men newly called to such positions- like high council for example which is typically all male except in a stake council situation.  When the sisters arrive they are more differential toward the men and less likely to speak frankly than the men in addressing programs or ideas that simply are not working.  I have worked with Relief Society sisters and encouraged them to "speak their minds" at these meetings and yet get phone calls later where they are willing to speak one on one but not so in meetings.  In meetings they tend to be overly polite, as I suppose they have been trained to be.

The traditions run deep and the need for better communication in meetings is crucial.

Overly polite?  How is that even possible?  Do you mean the women are simply more polite than the men, maybe?  Well then maybe the men need to learn from the sisters about how to be more polite than they are.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Ahab

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, but it IS the "conduit"- the wiring if you will or radio frequency - required to receive inspiration.  You cannot feel the spirit if the internal "TV" is tuned to the wrong channel.

I was saying same type of power, basically, but different sources for the signals.  Different channels but with the same type of message on each channel.  Light of Christ on 1 and Holy Ghost on 2 with the same type of power connecting us to both of those channels.

2 separate people, you know.  They are not the same person.

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, our society certainly buys into the concept of sacrificing lives, voluntarily and under command, for freedom (which is greater than peace, though peace, prosperity, etc. are the intended aims of freedom and would be nice). I'm not sure if that is specifically codified or implied anywhere such as the oath of enlistment, but military law does punish cowardice and disobedience. And we still allow for conscientious objection. My question was whether this concept of sacrifice (including property, conscience, etc.) is included in any humanist manifesto or (non-religious constitution, if we're including countries).

Excellent excellent question which brings us to the greatest incompatibility I have seen between humanism and true Christianity and that is the notion of sacrifice in general.

I think the Atonement just doesn't work for humanists and I see that as the impassible point of incompatibility with most Christians.

First of all, humanists I think tend not to think that punishment is the best way to handle wrong-doers.  Imprisonment, if needed at all for humanists, might be as a scenario for repeated offenders simply not as a punishment but to keep them out of society

Instead for those who can be rehabilitated, that is the answer.  More mental hospitals and fewer prisons.

Any notion like the Atonement is going to be hard for them- that OUR punishment- (why insist on its need?) for sins can or should be passed on to another would be very difficult to justify

On the other hand, they would find I think the idea that "one is saved (forgiven) after all you can do" is paralleled in the idea that if you "do the crime you must do the time" insofar that the time includes "all one can do" to be REHABILITATED.   So I think they would be heavy on putting for all you can do to be rehabilitated- and then serving time as required- restitution, perhaps- and THEN the forgiveness of society.

I did a thread on this several months ago- the humanist atonement, and what I saw as a possible substitute way of seeing the atonement as full and total repentence and the abandonment of the sin bringing one forgiveness before God and man, again seeing the issue functionally in a world of humanity.   In short I don't think that blood sacrifice by another person for my sins would be too popular in humanist circles. 

On the other hand "You are forgiven by the grace of the law after all you can do to repent" DOES work.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Overly polite?  How is that even possible?  Do you mean the women are simply more polite than the men, maybe?  Well then maybe the men need to learn from the sisters about how to be more polite than they are.

Well that is always true.

It is part of the "good old boys syndrome" and needs to change.  But I think the sisters need to be more assertive in expressing their opinions and yet remaining polite.  Guys learn that through previous leadership socialization which sisters do not have.  It's a shame!

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Excellent excellent question which brings us to the greatest incompatibility I have seen between humanism and true Christianity and that is the notion of sacrifice in general.

I think the Atonement just doesn't work for humanists and I see that as the impassible point of incompatibility with most Christians.

First of all, humanists I think tend not to think that punishment is the best way to handle wrong-doers.  Imprisonment, if needed at all for humanists, might be as a scenario for repeated offenders simply not as a punishment but to keep them out of society

Instead for those who can be rehabilitated, that is the answer.  More mental hospitals and fewer prisons.

Any notion like the Atonement is going to be hard for them- that OUR punishment- (why insist on its need?) for sins can or should be passed on to another would be very difficult to justify

On the other hand, they would find I think the idea that "one is saved (forgiven) after all you can do" is paralleled in the idea that if you "do the crime you must do the time" insofar that the time includes "all one can do" to be REHABILITATED.   So I think they would be heavy on putting for all you can do to be rehabilitated- and then serving time as required- restitution, perhaps- and THEN the forgiveness of society.

I did a thread on this several months ago- the humanist atonement, and what I saw as a possible substitute way of seeing the atonement as full and total repentence and the abandonment of the sin bringing one forgiveness before God and man, again seeing the issue functionally in a world of humanity.   In short I don't think that blood sacrifice by another person for my sins would be too popular in humanist circles. 

On the other hand "You are forgiven by the grace of the law after all you can do to repent" DOES work.

I think humanists with that concept of the atonement should be pointed toward thinking about how Christ lived rather than why he was put to death, but if they need help with the latter concept it could be handled fairly quickly with a jolt of realization that he did simply because other people killed him.  He was mortal and therefore he was going to die at one point or another, even if only by an almost immediate "twinkling" to become resurrected, and the reason he died the way he did is because other people put him to death.  Other people killed him, and he simply allowed them to do it.  Even though he was living the best way any of us could possibly live as a mortal.  And that, his life, is what saves us.  He, himself, and how he chose to live his life.  Not the way he died.  His death does not save us.  We just needed someone to break the bands of death for us, however he had chosen to die.

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I was saying same type of power, basically, but different sources for the signals.  Different channels but with the same type of message on each channel.  Light of Christ on 1 and Holy Ghost on 2 with the same type of power connecting us to both of those channels.

2 separate people, you know.  They are not the same person.

This is the last I will say about it.  This is not about fundamental LDS doctrine.  I am not talking about the Light of Christ, but the HG.  

Holy Ghost

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/holy-ghost

Quote

The Holy Ghost performs several vital roles in the plan of salvation. (1) He bears witness of the Father and the Son (1 Cor. 12:3; 3 Ne. 28:11; Ether 12:41). (2) He reveals the truth of all things (John 14:26; 16:13; Moro. 10:5; D&C 39:6). (3) He sanctifies those who have repented and become baptized (John 3:5; 3 Ne. 27:20; Moses 6:64–68). (4) He is the Holy Spirit of Promise (D&C 76:50–53; 132:7, 18–19, 26).
            The power of the Holy Ghost can come upon a person before baptism and witness that the gospel is true. But the right to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, whenever one is worthy, is a gift that can be received only by the laying on of hands by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder after authorized baptism into the true Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the last I will say about it.  This is not about fundamental LDS doctrine.  I am not talking about the Light of Christ, but the HG.

 

Agrees with the point I was making.  The same power leads down the same path but 2 separate persons are needed, with the 1st leading to the 2nd witness (testimony bearer) who can finish what the 1st person started until he finishes all of his work.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

On the other hand "You are forgiven by the grace of the law after all you can do to repent" DOES work.

This would also require a balancing principle, "You (the victim, survivors, estate or community) are made whole by the grace of the law before you can do again what you could do before."

Somebody is footing the bill for all this, a community of saviors!

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

.....................Can you recommend some social Anthropologists who have taken this on?................

My favorite has always been Professor Bennetta Jules-Rosette (UCSD), “The Veil of Objectivity: Prophecy, Divination, and Social Inquiry,”
    American Anthropologist, 80/3 (Sept 1978):549-570, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1978.80.3.02a00020/epdf .

She not only argues that an anthropologist must become part of the tribe he is studying, but she analyzes anthropology itself (or sciology) as a tribe with arcane, esoteric rules of argument and documentation indistinguishable from tribal rituals and laws.

We have met the tribe and they is us.

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My favorite has always been Professor Bennetta Jules-Rosette (UCSD), “The Veil of Objectivity: Prophecy, Divination, and Social Inquiry,”
    American Anthropologist, 80/3 (Sept 1978):549-570, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1978.80.3.02a00020/epdf .

She not only argues that an anthropologist must become part of the tribe he is studying, but she analyzes anthropology itself (or sciology) as a tribe with arcane, esoteric rules of argument and documentation indistinguishable from tribal rituals and laws.

We have met the tribe and they is us.

Thanks for that source- that sounds right up my alley.

Again one must be within the contextual community to understand the community's "truth"

It's peer review in action.    Once you grasp that fully, the universe changes.  It sounds like she sees it as including her own field as well as others.  THAT is fully grasping the concept when you can see your truth as just one of an infinite field of possibilities the community could have affirmed

All it takes is a few and you have a community

Edited September 5, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

2 separate people, you know.  They are not the same person.

Fairly obvious.  Light of CHRIST

Gift of the HOLY GHOST

yet inspiration of the HOLY GHOST before baptism.

Yeah I think I learned that about 40 years ago or so in the lessons with the missionaries.  Pretty basic stuff.

[MiserereNobis]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who has observed the natural God?  What do you need a class in Mormonism 101?  The only God who could be observable at least in principle is a "natural" immanent God, not one who is transcendent and is a amorphous cloud throughout the universe.  One who is not an ex-nihilo God but one who builds worlds from existing natural matter.  

If this is an attack on creedal Christianity's God, it is a straw-man. Catholicism does not believe in a "transcendent amorphous cloud throughout the universe." You were raised Catholic, Mark... you must have forgotten your catechism. One of the great beauties of the Catholic God is that He is both transcendent AND immanent. Otherwise how could have Thomas felt His wounds? God was obviously observable to His disciples. It is a glorious wonder that a transcendent God chose to be immanent to save us. God became human. The transcendent became immanent. Why? To save us! That is a choice most deserving of worship. And upon further reflection, most most deserving of worship! Deo gratias that He chose to become us to save us!

Please don't disparage Catholicism by claiming that we worship a transcendent blob. Quite the contrary. We worship the God who is transcendent and chose also to be immanent for the salvation of all humanity. This is a core tenant of Christianity.