Ahab Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Does the writer have his agency while writing, or is he a robot? 2 Peter 1:21 - For the aprophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God bspake as they were cmoved by the dHoly Ghost. Sounds to me like a robot with agency, since agency is something our Father gave us and didn't want Satan to take away from us.
mfbukowski Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 17 hours ago, Ahab said: Whatever floats their boat, I suppose. I have examined my life already so I just keep up to date with any changes as they come up. No need to keep looking back, reexamining things I have already examined. Remember Lot's wife. I don't want to turn into a pillar of salt. We all need to watch our sodium levels 1
mfbukowski Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: One issue that happens in philosophy quite frequently that doesn't happen as often in other disciplines is that people think there is no need for experts. It's probably because philosophy deals with ideas that most people have at least a cursory interest or experience with, such as: what is good, what is true, what is beautiful (the Platonic triumvirate!). Non-philosophers might not realize that these questions (and other philosophical ones) have been examined and debated for millennia, and that means that there are experts who know the arguments and the problems with the various positions. Philosophy is not just a bunch of hogwash. It's a real discipline which means it has a history and it has experts. Perhaps an analogy. You know that every now and then some new poster pops in here and brings up some anti-Mormon stuff, or some old issue, as if it were something new and terrifying to you. Many of you respond that you've already been down that road and know the issue more than the new poster and if the new poster is really interested in learning about it then they should go read old posts about the topic. In a sense, you are the experts because you have studied and are studying Mormonism (apologies, President Nelson, but there's yet no equivalent term). It can be the same with philosophy. Someone who hasn't studied it much, who has just a cursory understanding of the issues, drops in and claims to have some unshakeable position that philosophy actually has been dealing with for quite some time. This person's arguments aren't really new and the person giving them doesn't have enough background and contextual knowledge to be persuasive to someone, the philosopher, who knows the background and contextual knowledge. The philosopher's response can be similar to the LDS responses on this board: here is a basic answer, and here are some resources for you to read to learn more (the equivalent of referring the new poster to the old threads). This doesn't happen much in math, for example. If some non-mathematician has a cursory understanding of non-Euclidean geometry and makes a claim about it to a mathematician who knows it inside and out, usually the non-mathematician will accept the mathematician's view because, after all, she's the mathematician and she knows the background and context better. But of course, people don't interact with non-Euclidean geometry like they interact with philosophical questions so it's easy to shrug shoulders about math and go our merry way. This is why philosophy deals with this problem when many other fields don't. I encourage anyone who has interest in these issue to pick up an introductory book, or a philosophy for laymen book, on the issues. You'll see how much thinking has been done on these issues and realize that there are positions you probably never even thought of. You'll see the arguments for the various positions. You'll realize that this is an actual discipline with an actual history and, yes, actual experts. It's a worthy endeavor. And I agree with Socrates. As he was on trial for his life, charged because of his philosophical inquiries, he said that the unexamined life is not worth living. It is worth it to examine our lives, to examine our assumptions, to examine the beliefs that are the foundations of our actions. Find truth wherever it may be, through God's revelations, through the Holy Spirit, through mystical experience, through the deep and hard thinking of the philosophers, theologians, and saints. You are a strong proselytizing church. By definition that means you are asking people to reevaluate their deepest beliefs about themselves and the nature of reality and see if your position is closer to the truth than theirs. This means that you agree with Socrates -- you want to live an examined life. Don't poo-poo philosophy for being one of the few academic disciplines that actually does that. Exactly For most folks philosophy includes things you might read on a slip of paper in a fortune cookie. I find it so very hard to be kind, I need a lot of work in that area.
Ahab Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: You are a strong proselytizing church. By definition that means you are asking people to reevaluate their deepest beliefs about themselves and the nature of reality and see if your position is closer to the truth than theirs. This means that you agree with Socrates -- you want to live an examined life. Don't poo-poo philosophy for being one of the few academic disciplines that actually does that. I still like and remember how President Hinckley used to phrase our invitation to others: We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. Once you know the truth about something, there is no good reason to discard or ignore that knowledge. Remember it and keep it close to your heart, and as you discover new ideas or new ways to think about what you already know, new ideas or new ways to think that you had never thought of before, see if there is any way to add to what you already knew before you got those new ideas and new ways to think about things. The process of learning often requires some repetitious procedures, but you should never try to unlearn what you already know is the truth. As a convert from another church,. which I believed was the true church because most of my family taught me that it was, I didn't have to discard any truth I knew to be true to able to join this church I am a member of now, which I know is the true Church of Jesus Christ. We sometimes need to examine our own ideas which we think are true to discover what the truth really is, but at no time do we ever need to discard anything which we know is the truth in our pursuit of more truth. Not everything we think is something we know is the truth. There are differences between thinking and believing and knowing something, and I believe all 3 are related to our level of faith. When we find something that makes sense we can be kind of sure about it, and then maybe over more time become a little more sure about it, but once we get to the point where we are so sure about something that we would say we know it, with absolute certainty, we better make sure that God will assure us that we have the truth otherwise we will be wrong in thinking we know what the truth really is. Edited November 13, 2019 by Ahab 1
mfbukowski Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, CV75 said: I agree. My remarks were first about the misuse of the temple phrase considering the archaic definition of philosophy that was likely its original context; then in support of your comments about process theology in light of the changing understanding of what philosophy is/was over the past 150 years or so. Got it- that is a great point about philosophy and archaic definitions AND shows the progression of thought - the process of progression we are undergoing. I think though it is crucial to remember that since we demand that "everyone get their own testimony" we must be sensitive to the idea that there will never BE a systematic theology for members of the church- only perhaps different ways of interpreting scriptures and about hermeneutics That is why I am getting into Gadamer and the boys lately- we do not need a theology, but we do need some kind of philosophy about hermeneutics to replace that. I think we need to take it up a level and yes, dare I say it? bring in some meta-narratives to help us SEE scripture in a new way (as opposed to our usual literalism) We need to acknowledge that Joseph was a very human person who made mistakes and that all other prophets also were similarly inspired by God, but all they wrote came through a human brain which was tied to the times in which they wrote and impregnated with the concerns and thinking- "philosophy"- of the day. Scripture cannot be "God Breathed" and come to be written with a human hand, unless God suspends the agency of the prophet. All of rationality is based in human feeling and human needs and priorities- it is simply naive to think that prophets get a pass on that and are little robots, analogous to being a mechanical printer while God is the computer! That view diminishes the value of being human- a value that the Creator himself took upon himself! He condescended to give up his transcendence to become human and then decides to over ride the human contribution to scripture? Christ became man and SPOKE scripture AS A HUMAN BEING, to give it a human context and God would take that away to make something "God Breathed"? That makes no sense! He is our father. Can you imagine correcting every word spoken by your children so that they get it "right"? How will they ever learn what inspiration IS if they are robots you take over from time to time when they are supposedly "inspired"? That need for something "God Breathed" is a VERY Protestant notion born of the strong belief in the depravity of mankind, that humans are evil and could never possibly "get it right" on their own Every word our of every mouth from every person on the planet IS philosophy and makes philosophical assumptions! There is no language without definitions for words and there is no meaning without a human context which makes it "true" It is not possible for scriptures to be different from philosophy- the scriptures ARE philosophy and present to most noble truths ever to come out of the minds of inspired humans- and remember, God himself is a HUMAN. Denegrate "Philosophies of men" while God Himself is THE Man of Holiness? I should hope that the Man of Holiness is also a philosopher or we are in trouble!! Edited November 13, 2019 by mfbukowski 1
Ahab Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Scripture cannot be "God Breathed" and come to be written with a human hand, unless God suspends the agency of the prophet. All of rationality is based in human feeling and human needs and priorities- it is simply naive to think that prophets get a pass on that and are little robots, analogous to being a mechanical printer while God is the computer! That view diminishes the value of being human- a value that the Creator himself took upon himself! Have you ever written anything by inspiration from God? It's not hard to do when you have the Holy Ghost with you to give you inspiration, so I'll assume for the moment you have, just as I have. Did you notice how you were inspired to use certain words to convey your thoughts to others? Maybe you struggled a little to find the right words, as I usually do, but at some point you felt that what you had written was right and true and good and what God would have you to say. It's like having someone coach you on how to say things, rather than having to come up with the words all by yourself. And it doesn't really matter if some people don't understand what you meant. Some don't, but some do when they seek inspiration from God to help them understand what you have written. Quote He condescended to give up his transcendence to become human and then decides to over ride the human contribution to scripture? No.. Why would you think he would do that? Quote Christ became man and SPOKE scripture AS A HUMAN BEING, to give it a human context and God would take that away to make something "God Breathed"? That makes no sense! He is our father. Can you imagine correcting every word spoken by your children so that they get it "right"? How will they ever learn what inspiration IS if they are robots you take over from time to time when they are supposedly "inspired"? Writing by inspiration is writing with God helping you to write what you write, otherwise you're writing it all by yourself with only your own thoughts without inspiration from God to guide you. If you don't want his guidance, fine. He'll let you write all by yourself if that's what you want. Quote That need for something "God Breathed" is a VERY Protestant notion born of the strong belief in the depravity of mankind, that humans are evil and could never possibly "get it right" on their own Every word our of every mouth from every person on the planet IS philosophy and makes philosophical assumptions! There is no language without definitions for words and there is no meaning without a human context which makes it "true" It is not possible for scriptures to be different from philosophy- the scriptures ARE philosophy and present to most noble truths ever to come out of the minds of inspired humans- and remember, God himself is a HUMAN. Denegrate "Philosophies of men" while God Himself is THE Man of Holiness? I should hope that the Man of Holiness is also a philosopher or we are in trouble!! I suppose it depends on what you think philosophy is. I'm sure there is some definition you could use to apply the title of philosopher to our Father in heaven. Edited November 13, 2019 by Ahab
mfbukowski Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 42 minutes ago, Ahab said: Have you ever written anything by inspiration from God? It's not hard to do when you have the Holy Ghost with you to give you inspiration, so I'll assume for the moment you have, just as I have. Did you notice how you were inspired to use certain words to convey your thoughts to others? Maybe you struggled a little to find the right words, as I usually do, but at some point you felt that what you had written was right and true and good and what God would have you to say. It's like having someone coach you on how to say things, rather than having to come up with the words all by yourself. And it doesn't really matter if some people don't understand what you meant. Some don't, but some do when they seek inspiration from God to help them understand what you have written. Yes I agree. That's pretty much exactly how it is. YES I FELT it was what God wanted me to say and I SAID IT. And that is the whole point! I do not feel like a printer who just received a signal from the Computer and must print what I have been told to print.
Ahab Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 Just now, mfbukowski said: Yes I agree. That's pretty much exactly how it is. YES I FELT it was what God wanted me to say and I SAID IT. And that is the whole point! I do not feel like a printer who just received a signal from the Computer and must print what I have been told to print. The scripture makes that clear enough, I think, when it says (or the person who wrote it said): holy men of God bspake as they were cmoved by the dHoly Ghost. The holy men were and are the ones doing the writing of scripture, and the Holy Ghost moved or is moving them or inspiring them to write what they write.
mfbukowski Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 2 hours ago, Ahab said: 2 Peter 1:21 - For the aprophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God bspake as they were cmoved by the dHoly Ghost. Sounds to me like a robot with agency, since agency is something our Father gave us and didn't want Satan to take away from us. Yes and of course it all depends where you put the emphasis. Exactly my point- we are humans and see things differently. "HOLY MEN SPOKE as they were MOVED (directed by feelings) by the Holy Ghost" A robot with agency is a contradiction in terms.
Ahab Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: A robot with agency is a contradiction in terms. It depends on what kind of robot you have in mind, I suppose. My will and desire is to do the will of our Father in heaven. ALL of the TIME! Maybe just try to imagine me as a very fancy, complicated, and sexually attractive robot.
CV75 Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I think though it is crucial to remember that since we demand that "everyone get their own testimony" we must be sensitive to the idea that there will never BE a systematic theology for members of the church- only perhaps different ways of interpreting scriptures and about hermeneutics The invitation/expectation/demand to get our own testimony (Moroni 10:3-5) comes by way of a process as he describes it (and perhaps we can even call it a formula), but it is not a system for several reasons, most fundamentally in my mind because the person is the actual theology-generating system which is either prepared to apply the process / formula or not. On one level at least. At a 30,000 foot level God is the Man and the Philosopher, but the system/person (anyone who debates this) may or may not accommodate that at his granular level... In some ways it can be said that Moroni has a "system" that generates a set understanding of the nature and ways of God (whether by individual revelation or mediated revelation to the world from those with the keys), and in some ways he doesn't (he, like we, and like God, are systems of discovery, God having proven most highly successful).
mfbukowski Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 3 hours ago, Ahab said: It depends on what kind of robot you have in mind, I suppose. My will and desire is to do the will of our Father in heaven. ALL of the TIME! Maybe just try to imagine me as a very fancy, complicated, and sexually attractive robot. Uh, no thanks
JLHPROF Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: A robot with agency is a contradiction in terms. 1
Ahab Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I left my head.... in San Francisco.... high on a hill.... it calls to me....
MiserereNobis Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 22 hours ago, Ahab said: I still like and remember how President Hinckley used to phrase our invitation to others: We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. I've heard this before here and I do take a wee bit of exception to it. It's often used to show that converting to the LDS faith isn't that big of a switch because you get to bring what's good with you. However, it implicitly implies (redundant..?) that things that are not compatible with the LDS faith are not good. It also leaves the impression that things will not have to be removed. A personal example. I have great love and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hence my avatar. I pray to Her to quite frequently and I absolutely love the rosary. I also love Eucharastic Adoration, where the Blessed Sacrament is placed in view for believers to adore. It is a time of prayer and meditation in the presence of God. It is something I do 1-3 times a week (our cathedral has perpetual adoration, so you can go whenever you want). For me, these things are great goods in my life. If I were to convert, these would be religious practices that I would have to delete. I could not bring with me "all" the good that I have. I would to remove a lot of it and replace it with LDS stuff. That's why I dislike that statement. It feels a little... weaselly to me. The only "good" that I could bring with me in conversion is that which is already LDS. Then I'd have to replace all the rest. That's what religious conversion is, of course, but President Hinkley's statement downplays that and sounds more like PR than a statement of how conversion works. 1
MiserereNobis Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, Ahab said: I left my head.... in San Francisco.... high on a hill.... it calls to me.... Actually, Data's head was not high on a hill, but in a mine at the Presidio in the 1800's, right @The Nehor? Edited November 14, 2019 by MiserereNobis
Ahab Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: I've heard this before here and I do take a wee bit of exception to it. It's often used to show that converting to the LDS faith isn't that big of a switch because you get to bring what's good with you. However, it implicitly implies (redundant..?) that things that are not compatible with the LDS faith are not good. It also leaves the impression that things will not have to be removed. A personal example. I have great love and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hence my avatar. I pray to Her to quite frequently and I absolutely love the rosary. I also love Eucharastic Adoration, where the Blessed Sacrament is placed in view for believers to adore. It is a time of prayer and meditation in the presence of God. It is something I do 1-3 times a week (our cathedral has perpetual adoration, so you can go whenever you want). For me, these things are great goods in my life. If I were to convert, these would be religious practices that I would have to delete. I could not bring with me "all" the good that I have. I would to remove a lot of it and replace it with LDS stuff. That's why I dislike that statement. It feels a little... weaselly to me. The only "good" that I could bring with me in conversion is that which is already LDS. Then I'd have to replace all the rest. That's what religious conversion is, of course, but President Hinkley's statement downplays that and sounds more like PR than a statement of how conversion works. I think you're misunderstanding the invitation. You could actually remain a member of the Catholic Church and do all of the things you currently do while ADDING to all of that... adding all that we or the Lord can give you. You don't have to resign your membership in the Catholic Church to become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And you don't have to stop attending any of the meetings you attend, or stop using the rosary, or stop praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Just realize that your goal should be to know all truth and to do the best you can do, so if you ever do have to make a choice between something or other your choice should be to accept or adhere to what is true and best for you to do, not just something you like because you like doing it. Sometimes it's a matter of choosing between was is good, better and best, and sometimes to do what is best you have to give up doing something that is good or better, because best is better than that.
The Nehor Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: Actually, Data's head was not high on a hill, but in a mine at the Presidio in the 1800's, right @The Nehor? I do not remember if it was a presidio but yes. Also, I found that card game terrible when I was a teenager. Edited November 14, 2019 by The Nehor
Ahab Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 48 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I do not remember if it was a presidio but yes. Also, I found that card game terrible when I was a teenager. Yes I remember playing that card game and I concur with your findings. I liked playing a card game called "Magic, the Gathering" much better. Robots do know how to have fun, at least sometimes.
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 21 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I don't know why they don't tweak that adjusting screw behind his ear to at least line up his eyes better. Cheesh! They need a better maintenance guy.
blarsen Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 5 hours ago, Ahab said: . . . . . You don't have to resign your membership in the Catholic Church to become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And you don't have to stop attending any of the meetings you attend, or stop using the rosary, or stop praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary . . . . . You think? I'd never thought about this. Any modern day scripture or pronouncements from the Brethren on this to back up your claim?
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, blarsen said: You think? I'd never thought about this. Any modern day scripture or pronouncements from the Brethren on this to back up your claim? An LDS member who joins another church gets excommunicated. It doesn't matter what the Catholics do. Besides it sounds like you would be a member of a church that opposes ours. In an emergency any Christian can baptize a Catholic baby, to get rid of original sin in case they die. Except of course we are not Christians in their book. They do not recognize our baptism as valid, even though the words said are nearly exactly the same, in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost. They would recognize those words if spoken by a Baptist but not us. Edited November 14, 2019 by mfbukowski 1
Ahab Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 14 minutes ago, blarsen said: You think? I'd never thought about this. Any modern day scripture or pronouncements from the Brethren on this to back up your claim? Yes I think. Why would they need to say anything to back that up? I've never resigned my membership in the Church of Christ and nobody has ever told me I should. I don't attend often except when visiting my family out of town, with most of them going to that church and me going with them instead of to my church then. My Dad died recently, last year, and I wanted my wife to see him preach, and to know what that church is like.
Ahab Posted November 14, 2019 Posted November 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: An LDS member who joins another church gets excommunicated. Not necessarily. There is no reason that would need to happen. Besides we're talking about someone in the Catholic Church joining our Church. Do you think someone in our Church would check up on him to make sure he withdrew his membership status with that church? He wouldn't need to. We don't have any requirement about new members withdrawing their membership from the previous church they attended as members. 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Besides it sounds like you would be a member of a church that opposes ours. Opposes? Disagrees on some tenets and beliefs but I wouldn't say the Catholic Church is opposed to our Church. We've developed a pretty good relationship with them, as a Church, or at least our leaders have. 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: In an emergency any Christian can baptize a Catholic baby, to get rid of original sin in case they die. I'll take that as a joke, which I presume it was intended to be. 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Except of course we are not Christians in their book. They do not recognize our baptism as valid, even though the words said are nearly exactly the same, in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost. They would recognize those words if spoken by a Baptist but not us. But we are Christians, even if some of them don't think so. We're all in this together. They may be Terrestrial level Christians and not Celestial level Christians, but we're all going to end up in the one overall universal Heaven together. Regardless of which church we are members of.
mfbukowski Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ahab said: I'll take that as a joke, which I presume it was intended to be. Look up all of these. 1-https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-accept-mormon-baptism "Question: Why doesn't the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?<br /> <br /> Answer: The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because, although Mormons and Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings for each religion. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different from that of Christians—even though they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures. They also believe that Jesus came into existence after the Father, and that the Father and the Son are not one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is actually polytheistic and pagan rather than trinitarian." Edited November 15, 2019 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts