Jump to content

Conference Discussion


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is a big difference between the respect and civility of a scholarly critique, and those rendered by the hoi polloi..  In particular, a scholar finds it unnecessary to get emotionally caught up in defense of any belief system.  He must be able to separate himself from, or bracket belief, and to discuss it dispassionately.  A sneering response to belief is not the same as an intellectual response.

I intended simply to point out the failure of the parable and why it makes the God concept problematic.  That is not sneering.  I would point out religious discussion is tough because people tend to take comments about the perceived failure of religion personally.  It then becomes a game of whose worser--the religious who are easily offended or the critic who is going where religionists prefer no one tread.  

As I see it to call Jesus' teachings problematic, or the result of his logic silly, is not a sneer nor an offense.  To some, I realize, you simply can't go there and doing so opens you up to accusations of evil, or sneering, or lack of scholarly-esque behavior.  I'd say it should be less about a personal contest, less about offense and more about the ideas.  Is the parable of the ten virgins worthwhile teaching?  I say no and state my reasons, you say yes and state yours.  We can end with respect and dignity at that point.  

Link to post
14 hours ago, Ahab said:

No, the wedding feast for the Church will be when our Savior returns.

That's what I've been saying.  I thought you contested the notion that the teaching was limited to people who are around when jesus does return.  It seems it's meaningless to most people who read it, since most who read it will be long dead before Jesus shows up.  

14 hours ago, Ahab said:

  Until then we're just waiting for it to happen, and we will either be ready for it when it comes, or we won't and won't be accepted into the party.

Sure.  And that's what I call a silly concept.  

14 hours ago, Ahab said:

He is and always will be part of us.  When a married man and woman reproduce themselves part of the man and woman is always with their offspring.  We just need to try to get in touch with those parts of ourselves as much as we can and we are told to do that by trying to do our best to communicate with our Father in heaven.

ok.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That certainly hasn't been my experience.

It seems to me communication from God to man is individual and happens when others are not present either inside the subject, inside the psyche or found in the feelings and emotions.  Sure, anyone can call that God, if one chooses. Others of us might just call that things like emotions, imagination, bias, subjective intuition or other such things.  I realize those who say God communicates with them would suggest something like "well my experience with God is real and is better than what you have".  Perhaps but we'll never know.  It may be nothing more than people thinking they are above others, or have special dealings with God, are favored by Him, blessed by Him, or are his chosen; thinking those who don't have ears aren't really God's anyway.  

Edited by stemelbow
Link to post
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I intended simply to point out the failure of the parable and why it makes the God concept problematic.  That is not sneering.  I would point out religious discussion is tough because people tend to take comments about the perceived failure of religion personally.  It then becomes a game of whose worser--the religious who are easily offended or the critic who is going where religionists prefer no one tread.  

As I see it to call Jesus' teachings problematic, or the result of his logic silly, is not a sneer nor an offense.  To some, I realize, you simply can't go there and doing so opens you up to accusations of evil, or sneering, or lack of scholarly-esque behavior.  I'd say it should be less about a personal contest, less about offense and more about the ideas.  Is the parable of the ten virgins worthwhile teaching?  I say no and state my reasons, you say yes and state yours.  We can end with respect and dignity at that point.  

Scholarship is unrelated to apologetics and polemics and has nothing to do with defending turf or emotion.  The question of God has nothing to do with the parable under discussion.  It is solely and only a question of a moral fable being applied to readiness or lack of readiness.  If you did not read Aesop's Fables as a child this may not make much sense, but many unwary readers miss the point because they take these fables literally.  They can't understand why the fable has a fox trying to reach those grapes on the vine in a tree.  When he can't reach them, he simply says that they were sour anyway.   The fact that foxes don't eat grapes and that they don't talk is beside the point.  Even children get that.

Jesus tells a number of fables which are not to be taken literally.  You clearly got caught up in the distasteful Jesus-connection in the same way that Kermit the Frog might get caught up in a rainbow-connection, which entirely misses the point.

Quote

Why are there so many songs about rainbows
And what's on the other side?
Rainbows are visions, but only illusions
And rainbows have nothing to hide.................

 

Link to post
4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's what I've been saying.  I thought you contested the notion that the teaching was limited to people who are around when jesus does return.  It seems it's meaningless to most people who read it, since most who read it will be long dead before Jesus shows up.  

Reading about the event was not the point of the story.  The point of the story was about the need to be ready for an event rather than miss out because of not being prepared for the event.

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  And that's what I call a silly concept.  

Okay, you can call the need to be prepared for an event "silly" if you want to.  Just be prepared to miss out on feasts, celebrations, and many good things just because you were not prepared for them.

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholarship is unrelated to apologetics and polemics and has nothing to do with defending turf or emotion.  The question of God has nothing to do with the parable under discussion.  It is solely and only a question of a moral fable being applied to readiness or lack of readiness.  If you did not read Aesop's Fables as a child this may not make much sense, but many unwary readers miss the point because they take these fables literally.  They can't understand why the fable has a fox trying to reach those grapes on the vine in a tree.  When he can't reach them, he simply says that they were sour anyway.   The fact that foxes don't eat grapes and that they don't talk is beside the point.  Even children get that.

Jesus tells a number of fables which are not to be taken literally.  You clearly got caught up in the distasteful Jesus-connection in the same way that Kermit the Frog might get caught up in a rainbow-connection, which entirely misses the point.

 

What makes you think I'm reading this parable literally?  It doesn't sound like anyone would seriously read Jesus' parables literally.  

It sounds to me you have the opposite problem.  You are reading too vague a message in the story--" It is solely and only a question of a moral fable being applied to readiness or lack of readiness".  It's more than that, of course.  There is a reason he uses 10 virgins...there is reason half don't do the simple, kind of meaningless activity of getting oil.  There is a reason the 5 aren't allowed into the party.  There is meaning to the bridegroom and the event itself.  

Link to post
39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Reading about the event was not the point of the story.  The point of the story was about the need to be ready for an event rather than miss out because of not being prepared for the event.

Okay, you can call the need to be prepared for an event "silly" if you want to.  Just be prepared to miss out on feasts, celebrations, and many good things just because you were not prepared for them.

 

I miss out on fancy and thrilling events each day, and yet I still find myself content.  

Link to post
24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What makes you think I'm reading this parable literally?  It doesn't sound like anyone would seriously read Jesus' parables literally.  

It sounds to me you have the opposite problem.  You are reading too vague a message in the story--" It is solely and only a question of a moral fable being applied to readiness or lack of readiness".  It's more than that, of course.  There is a reason he uses 10 virgins...there is reason half don't do the simple, kind of meaningless activity of getting oil.  There is a reason the 5 aren't allowed into the party.  There is meaning to the bridegroom and the event itself.  

Once again, you are doing exactly what you claim not to be doing with that parable.  The use of oil and virgins is irrelevant, and you get irretrievably stuck on those particulars, which is not the point of the parable at all.  Any sort of vehicle may be used to make a point in such fables.  For you the actual point of the story is those particulars, while the message I get is "too vague," according to you.  Are you certain that you know how to read fables?  Aren't you taking seriously what Kermit the Frog sees as an illusion?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, you are doing exactly what you claim not to be doing with that parable.  The use of oil and virgins is irrelevant, and you get irretrievably stuck on those particulars, which is not the point of the parable at all.  Any sort of vehicle may be used to make a point in such fables.  For you the actual point of the story is those particulars, while the message I get is "too vague," according to you.  Are you certain that you know how to read fables?  Aren't you taking seriously what Kermit the Frog sees as an illusion?

Great.  Either Jesus' parables are problems as I see them or they are simplistic meaningless nursery level lessons, which to me is just another type of problem.  

Link to post
On 10/6/2020 at 9:20 PM, The Nehor said:

Which leaves the obvious question as to what the difference is between the spirits born then and the spirits born now.

Mortals will still live on earth, and they will continue to have children as we do now.

Righteous mortal men and women who die after the beginning of the Millennium shall not sleep in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye.

Children born in this era shall grow up until they become old.

 

Looks pretty much like business as usual except for the dying part.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Great.  Either Jesus' parables are problems as I see them or they are simplistic meaningless nursery level lessons, which to me is just another type of problem.  

Most of Aesop's fables and Jesus' parables are indeed nursery level lessons.  Anyone should be able to understand them without any sophistication.  They are intended to be simple observations about life, and they readily appeal to both children and ordinary adults.  Which can lead some people to look for a hidden meaning, or to focus on the particulars of the fable -- as though those particulars are important, which they most certainly are not.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Mortals will still live on earth, and they will continue to have children as we do now.

Righteous mortal men and women who die after the beginning of the Millennium shall not sleep in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye.

Children born in this era shall grow up until they become old.

 

Looks pretty much like business as usual except for the dying part.

Yes, but why will some be born in a better world with an arguably easier path to exaltation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but why will some be born in a better world with an arguably easier path to exaltation.

Maybe they are like the children who die before the age of accountability and those who are mentally not accountable?

Quote

They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. “Little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten,” the Lord says. (D&C 29:46.)

Bruce R. McConkey, April 1977.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but why will some be born in a better world with an arguably easier path to exaltation.

I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with how they conducted themselves in the premortal life.  After all, we know that Christ did everything He needed to do, save one thing, to become a God—compare Matthew 5:48 to 3 Nephi 12:48—in the premortal life.

Link to post
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most of Aesop's fables and Jesus' parables are indeed nursery level lessons.  Anyone should be able to understand them without any sophistication.  They are intended to be simple observations about life, and they readily appeal to both children and ordinary adults.  Which can lead some people to look for a hidden meaning, or to focus on the particulars of the fable -- as though those particulars are important, which they most certainly are not.

Alright, Robert.  I hate to re-point it out but it seems to me you are simplifying Jesus' teachings to the point of not being anything interesting or unique at all.  Ok.  if you feel that strongly about it.  

Link to post
50 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with how they conducted themselves in the premortal life.  After all, we know that Christ did everything He needed to do, save one thing, to become a God—compare Matthew 5:48 to 3 Nephi 12:48—in the premortal life.

The plan only gets more complicated the more you think about it.  Why is it so unfair and uneven in this world? 

Well because God already knows you and assigns you earthly station based on what you did and what you were before this world.  

So those who have it harder here were, what, less righteous as spirit beings?  

Of course, prophets have always said we are the righteous who were held in reserve for these last days.  And they taught that some people take on certain "handicaps", if you will, in this life to make up for being too indecisive and less noble in the world before this.  

Sounds like God is holding a grudge for many then.  Aren't our memories wiped clean when we come here?  On these thoughts God isn't treating this life as the test, but the test includes all that which came before and, as it turns out, all that which comes after.  Some of us, apparently, never really have a chance to "know God" because of something we don't know we did.  Its as if at the day of judgment and all our memories get restored, God says something like, "well I never knew you, so depart from me you that do iniquity", and we realize we lived millennia earlier than everyone else, in the harsh lands of a jungle ending a short earth existence by being eaten by another person, because we felt sympathy for some other spirit person who ran off with Satan's crowd some many worlds before.  

Indeed, people who were less valiant before this world and as the war in heaven went on, will rightly have a lesser opportunity here and in the world to come, because they "felt sympathy" or "felt confused" by the hysteria of that war.  

So in essence it doesn't really matter what we do here, if it turns out we can't individually make up for the failures we did before, those things we simply can't really know we ever did? 

It's only fair.  God is just and all of that.  

Ok.  Kenngo.  If you say so.

 

 

Edited by stemelbow
Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

The plan only gets more complicated the more you think about it.  Why is it so unfair and uneven in this world? 

Well because God already knows you and assigns you earthly station based on what you did and what you were before this world.  

So those who have it harder here were, what, less righteous as spirit beings?  

Of course, prophets have always said we are the righteous who were held in reserve for these last days.  And they taught that some people take on certain "handicaps", if you will, in this life to make up for being too indecisive and less noble in the world before this.  

Sounds like God is holding a grudge for many then.  Aren't our memories wiped clean when we come here?  On these thoughts God isn't treating this life as the test, but the test includes all that which came before and, as it turns out, all that which comes after.  Some of us, apparently, never really have a chance to "know God" because of something we don't know we did.  Its as if at the day of judgment and all our memories get restored, God says something like, "well I never knew you, so depart from me you that do iniquity", and we realize we lived millennia earlier than everyone else, in the harsh lands of a jungle ending a short earth existence by being eaten by another person, because we felt sympathy for some other spirit person who ran off with Satan's crowd some worlds before.  

Indeed, people who were less valiant before this world and as the war in heaven went on, will rightly have a lesser opportunity here and in the world to come, because they "felt sympathy" or "felt confused" by the hysteria of that war.  

So in essence it doesn't really matter what we do here, if it turns out we can't individually make up for the failures we did before, those things we simply can't really know we ever did? 

It's only fair.  God is just and all of that.  

Ok.  Kenngo.  If you say so.

 

 

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The plan only gets more complicated the more you think about it.  Why is it so unfair and uneven in this world? 

Well because God already knows you and assigns you earthly station based on what you did and what you were before this world.  

So those who have it harder here were, what, less righteous as spirit beings?  

Of course, prophets have always said we are the righteous who were held in reserve for these last days.  And they taught that some people take on certain "handicaps", if you will, in this life to make up for being too indecisive and less noble in the world before this.  

Sounds like God is holding a grudge for many then.  Aren't our memories wiped clean when we come here?  On these thoughts God isn't treating this life as the test, but the test includes all that which came before and, as it turns out, all that which comes after.  Some of us, apparently, never really have a chance to "know God" because of something we don't know we did.  Its as if at the day of judgment and all our memories get restored, God says something like, "well I never knew you, so depart from me you that do iniquity", and we realize we lived millennia earlier than everyone else, in the harsh lands of a jungle ending a short earth existence by being eaten by another person, because we felt sympathy for some other spirit person who ran off with Satan's crowd some many worlds before.  

Indeed, people who were less valiant before this world and as the war in heaven went on, will rightly have a lesser opportunity here and in the world to come, because they "felt sympathy" or "felt confused" by the hysteria of that war.  

So in essence it doesn't really matter what we do here, if it turns out we can't individually make up for the failures we did before, those things we simply can't really know we ever did? 

It's only fair.  God is just and all of that.  

Ok.  Kenngo.  If you say so.

 

 

Bitter, much?  Boy, that's an awful lot to read into a very brief, tentative comment.  It might surprise you to learn that, in some ways, you and I aren't so very different.  We have many of the same questions.  The only real difference between us is that I have determined, as best I can, to avoid letting what I do know be held hostage to what, as yet, I do not know.  I recognize your mileage varies greatly, and that's fine: To each, his own.

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 10/13/2020 at 6:50 AM, stemelbow said:

I intended simply to point out the failure of the parable and why it makes the God concept problematic.  That is not sneering.  I would point out religious discussion is tough because people tend to take comments about the perceived failure of religion personally.  It then becomes a game of whose worser--the religious who are easily offended or the critic who is going where religionists prefer no one tread.  

As I see it to call Jesus' teachings problematic, or the result of his logic silly, is not a sneer nor an offense.  To some, I realize, you simply can't go there and doing so opens you up to accusations of evil, or sneering, or lack of scholarly-esque behavior.  I'd say it should be less about a personal contest, less about offense and more about the ideas.  Is the parable of the ten virgins worthwhile teaching?  I say no and state my reasons, you say yes and state yours.  We can end with respect and dignity at that point.  

This discussion reminded me of a similar situation presented in the Book of Mormon;  1 Nephi 15.  Laman and Lemuel were 'disputing one with another over prophesies/vision etc their Father had shared with them.  Nephi asked them 'have ye inquired of the Lord?'  It was the Lord who shared the Parable of the Virgins and their oil lamps, so why not let him help you understand it?  There's where you will find answers. Anyway,  I think that chapter would be worth reading and maybe it will help you gain some insight for yourself, as that is the best way to learn, imo.

  • Like 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Bitter, much?  Boy, that's an awful lot to read into a very brief, tentative comment.  It might surprise you to learn that, in some ways, you and I aren't so very different.  We have many of the same questions.  The only real difference between us is that I have determined, as best I can, to avoid letting what I do know be held hostage to what, as yet, I do not know.  I recognize your mileage varies greatly, and that's fine: To each, his own.

What makes you think I'm bitter?  Because I question belief?  It sounds to me you only assume you know something which you do not know, and pretend that questions that arise about belief do not really impact what you've already assumed must be true, because you've assumed it.  I mean ok.  But, surely, and to me stated more accurately about the way I proceed, I do not presume to know that which I do not know.  

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...