Jump to content

Radical Orthodoxy: A Manifesto


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The point was that what is going on physically in the brain is separate from what goes subjectively in the mind. Any and all studies of the brain are not going to show you what the person is subjectively experiencing. Usually philosophers point out that brain scans only show you what part of the brain is working when people have different experiences. The brain scan does not reveal what the person is actually experiencing. This professor was adding humor to that example.

You're adding a lot more of your own ideas to what the professor was actually professing and none of what you are adding to his words can be shown to be what he had in his brain when he was making his point.  Do you notice that now that I mention it?

You Catholics have a lot in common with how you interpret and understand someone else's words, and if you think about it some more you may notice that a lot of that has a lot to do with another person's tongue and brain.

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You're adding a lot more of your own ideas to what the professor was actually professing and none of what you are adding to his words can be shown to be what he had in his brain when he was making his point.  Do you notice that now that I mention it?

You Catholics have a lot in common with how you interpret and understand someone else's words, and if you think about it some more you may notice that a lot of that has a lot to do with another person's tongue and brain.

Are you trying out some of those psychedelics we were talking about earlier in the thread..?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Lincoln City ward is not having our usual Christmas dinner, which is a shame since it was always a wonderful activity... ditto with our foregoing Thanksgiving... 

GG

Link to post
7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I figured as much. 

I am technically not a scientist (i.e. no academic degree), but the Universe to me is a real place, and it stands on its own as the strongest evidence for God that can be found outside of a still, small, voice. Hawkings' last attempt to convince people that God isn't real or possible, namely the first chapter of his last book, was so full of pseudoscience that I marveled he could be so obtuse. He said the universe came into being out of nothing, and had no cause. And then had the gall to say it was by the "laws of science." No chance to ask him "which law is that, exactly?" In the end, to argue against God he had to resort to the very last place he probably wanted to go: Faith. Because that's all he had left.

The most resoundingly stupid thing he said in that entire chapter, and it was an epiphany to me, was this (I hope I haven't regaled you with this already, I've been shouting it to anyone who would listen for a few months now):

"As we travel back in time towards the moment of the Big Bang, the universe gets smaller and smaller and smaller, until it finally comes to a point where the whole universe is a space so small that it is in effect a single infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole. And just as with modern-day black holes, floating around in space, the laws of nature dictate something quite extraordinary. They tell us that here too time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

First, I marveled at causality being tossed negligently out the window (there's something that doesn't have a cause?), but then the time thing landed. Oh, my heck. Of course there was no time for a creator to have existed in, because he couldn't have been inside the "infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole". Because for him to be there, he basically would have had to create Himself. An absurdity beyond stupidity, for a massive intellect like Hawking's. It was just as cringeworthy as that Soviet cosmonaut who came back from space to tell the world that he didn't see God while he was up there, so that proves there is no God.

I don't think Dawkins can define himself objectively. For all he knows, he is the only intelligent being in existence, and everything he sees around him is a figment of his own imagination. So, I'd be tempted to say he doesn't exist.  Sort that one out, Richie baby.

Sorry, Mark. Didn't notice that. I know that there is no objective evidence. There is only subjective, and we just agree sometimes on what we see and hear, and call it good enough for getting on with. 

All I have to do to scare the heck out of myself is to try to imagine the Infinite. Does it every time.

What did Hamlet say to Horatio about his philosophy? Oh, yes:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Great post and I agree with every word.

I re-read that one line of my brilliance: -----  "Yeah I had to take German to not get the Masters that I never finished because I found all the answers without it."

Man I really messed up saying it that way- it sounds like I was saying I have all the answers- which is clearly not the case.

What I MEANT was that WITTGENSTEIN DID HAVE the methodology to solve all the problems of philosophy, and I adopted his method as true.   His insight was that all the problems of philosophy were merely LINGUISTIC CONFUSIONS which is proven by this thread itself.  ;)

Once I realized he was right, it became clear that there was "nothing there" - that all the mental confusions/diseases of philosophy could be cured by vaccinating oneself against linguistic confusion

So we are in agreement!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
7 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think we agree that everything is subjectively experienced.  What I think we disagree on is that some things are not true\real even though some people subjectively believe they are true/real.  Reality is not what some people believe it is.

Okay, so how does that principle apply to people who believe something is true/real when in reality it really is not true/real?

Me thinks thou doest flip out too much.

And why do YOU suppose that argument doesn't work philosophically?

Read my Rorty quote below.

The answers to your questions are there and always have been.

Link to post
On 12/3/2020 at 4:39 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps the problem is that LDS make claims of objective evidence. If I recall, doesn't the intro to the Book of Mormon claim it is a history of the Native Americans?  If LDS dropped claims of objective evidence, then counter-claims would also drop. But you can't really have it both ways, can you?

That is the entire problem- you Nageled it ;)

We LDS just love to think like atheists and don't even know we are doing it

Every quest for historicity, every quasi-scientific theory about God's body or the universe that we pull out of a hat....   Uh...  maybe I should have not quite said it that way...  ;)  just helps destroy the very reason we exist

It is very curious and I really do not understand the need for self-contradiction we see in virtually every sentence on this board.

I'm trying to fix it, but of course it doesn't work.   There is no objective evidence for any of it and for it to be true there MUST NOT be objective evidence.   That is sign-seeking and it is all we do.   All the alleged scholars and writers spend their lives in wasted effort totally missing the point.

We are here to be tested to see if we spiritually find the true church, and the test is in the ability to find the church by the spirit, not archaeology!  Why can't people see that??

It's like we collectively want the church to commit suicide by our inane arguments that do more damage than help.

Sorry I think I need a little vacation.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, I'll take a stroll down Ahab lane again :)

Without agreeing or disagreeing, please tell me what the professor was trying to show by saying you can't taste chocolate if you lick someone's brain who is eating chocolate. Straight up summary. What's the professor's point?

Oh my.   God bless you, you are a brave man.   I wish you well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I admit I find religious manifestos distasteful. In my mind there is always a bit of suspicion that declarations and manifestos of loyalty to God are really a kind of cheap add-on to eternal covenants. I have no real objection to anything the manifesto actually says. Maybe I am turning Protestant. I have no objection to this creed but I find creeds distasteful.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is impossible to be loyal to Christ and not be loyal to his Church.  The whole logic that one can divorce one from the other is absurd. 

So many problems with this. First, where does "his Church" begin and end? Does it extend to all the authorized representatives? Does it extend throughout the entire culture of the Church? Does it hold diachronically? Because there are many issues on which the Church has entirely changed its position and has even come to denounce its former position. Where, precisely, does "his Church" stop? Next, wherever you say "his Church" stops, you're going to be attributing inerrancy to every human who makes decisions on behalf of "his Church," and depending on where you say "his Church" stops, that might include people like me, who make decisions for how the Book of Mormon is translated into other languages. I don't think many people have really thought hard enough about the implications of insisting the Church is absolutely and entirely coterminous with Christ. It seems to me, the thinking most commonly stops at realizing how rhetorically useful it would be for guarding and protecting authority to insist that the Church is Christ and Christ is the Church. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

So many problems with this. First, where does "his Church" begin and end? Does it extend to all the authorized representatives? Does it extend throughout the entire culture of the Church? Does it hold diachronically? Because there are many issues on which the Church has entirely changed its position and has even come to denounce its former position. Where, precisely, does "his Church" stop? Next, wherever you say "his Church" stops, you're going to be attributing inerrancy to every human who makes decisions on behalf of "his Church," and depending on where you say "his Church" stops, that might include people like me, who make decisions for how the Book of Mormon is translated into other languages. I don't think many people have really thought hard enough about the implications of insisting the Church is absolutely and entirely coterminous with Christ. It seems to me, the thinking most commonly stops at realizing how rhetorically useful it would be for guarding and protecting authority to insist that the Church is Christ and Christ is the Church. 

Who had said the bolded part?  I certainly don’t believe it.

My husband is a flawed individual (as I am) yet I don’t believe that should keep me from being loyal to him, or keep him from being loyal to me.  If he is who I believe him to be, then that is reason enough for my loyalty.

Likewise, if the church is what I believe Christ claims it is, then to me that is reason enough for my loyalty, regardless of imperfections and mistakes.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Who had said the bolded part?  I certainly don’t believe it.

My husband is a flawed individual (as I am) yet I don’t believe that should keep me from being loyal to him, or keep him from being loyal to me.  If he is who I believe him to be, then that is reason enough for my loyalty.

Likewise, if the church is what I believe Christ claims it is, then to me that is reason enough for my loyalty, regardless of imperfections and mistakes.

It's not about imperfections or mistakes, it's about the possibility of divergence in agency. If it is impossible to be loyal to Christ while not being loyal to the Church, then it is impossible for the agency of Christ and the agency of the Church to diverge. In other words, there can never be a word of difference between them. If the Church is imperfect or flawed in any of its interests or actions, then so too must Christ be in the same interests or actions. Otherwise, they must diverge, in which case one can remain loyal to Christ in his perfection while not remaining loyal to the Church in its imperfection. I don't think there's a rational case to be made that the institutional Church is utterly, completely, and inextricably coterminous with Christ. 

Link to post
16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Then you haven't properly imagined it.

That was Fred Hoyle's assertion, so at least you err in good company.

Indeed, supposedly Georg Cantor went mad thinking about infinities. Supposedly.
But, Ahab is right  in that the Big Bang is not the beginning. I would also say accidentally right because based on my past interactions with him, he doesn't understand contemporary cosmology at all. Still, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/09/17/if-the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-what-was-it/?sh=a68c8825819e

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

It's not about imperfections or mistakes, it's about the possibility of divergence in agency. If it is impossible to be loyal to Christ while not being loyal to the Church, then it is impossible for the agency of Christ and the agency of the Church to diverge. In other words, there can never be a word of difference between them.

Uh, no.  Not unless someone is trying to use a really tortured definition of loyalty.

Quote

If the Church is imperfect or flawed in any of its interests or actions, then so too must Christ be in the same interests or actions.

I don't believe so.  

Quote

Otherwise, they must diverge, in which case one can remain loyal to Christ in his perfection while not remaining loyal to the Church in its imperfection.

Again, that's like saying that I can only be loyal to my husband when he is perfect but I should not remain loyal to him in his imperfection.  I don't think that would make me a very good wife.  Neither would my marriage survive very long.

Christ knew His leaders would be imperfect.  He laid it all out--that they would be weak and imperfect and make mistakes--in the first section of the D&C, right after He explained everything those flawed individuals were commanded by Him to do and accomplish. 

I don't believe we can be loyal to Christ and disloyal to the people He calls to do His work.     

Quote

I don't think there's a rational case to be made that the institutional Church is utterly, completely, and inextricably coterminous with Christ.

I completely agree.  Which is why I'm not making that case.  I don't believe anyone else on the thread is making that case either.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
22 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

It's not about imperfections or mistakes, it's about the possibility of divergence in agency. If it is impossible to be loyal to Christ while not being loyal to the Church, then it is impossible for the agency of Christ and the agency of the Church to diverge. In other words, there can never be a word of difference between them. If the Church is imperfect or flawed in any of its interests or actions, then so too must Christ be in the same interests or actions. Otherwise, they must diverge, in which case one can remain loyal to Christ in his perfection while not remaining loyal to the Church in its imperfection. I don't think there's a rational case to be made that the institutional Church is utterly, completely, and inextricably coterminous with Christ. 

For the sake of discussion: Given that Christ atoned for all imperfection of any kind, there is no divergence of agency, from the eternal perspective, between Him and us and Him and the Church. We establish the converging agency by submitting our wills to His grace, and diverge when we do not. The Church (the operation of the governing Councils) does also. In this way, the agency of Christ, His Church, and His people do not diverge, only those individuals who refuse the convergence.

Link to post
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Uh, no.  Not unless someone is trying to use a really tortured definition of loyalty.

I don't believe so.  

Again, that's like saying that I can only be loyal to my husband when he is perfect but I should not remain loyal to him in his imperfection.  I don't think that would make me a very good wife.  Neither would my marriage survive very long.

You keep raising the issue of loyalty to a single agent, but my concern has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one can remain loyal to a single agent even if they're imperfect. It has to do with the fact that there are two agents in question, and if the interests or demands of those agents diverge, we may potentially be put in a position where we have to choose which one to prioritize and which one to subordinate. Again, it's not a question of whether or not the Church is perfect, it's a question of whether or not the Church's interests and demands can possibly ever diverge from those of Christ, and you seem to acknowledge below that they can.

Quote

 

Christ knew His leaders would be imperfect.  He laid it all out--that they would be weak and imperfect and make mistakes--in the first section of the D&C, right after He explained everything those flawed individuals were commanded by Him to do and accomplish. 

I don't believe we can be loyal to Christ and disloyal to the people He calls to do His work.     

I completely agree.  Which is why I'm not making that case.  I don't believe anyone else on the thread is making that case either.

 

That is precisely the case that is being made when someone says it is "impossible to be loyal to Christ and not be loyal to his Church." It is only impossible if the Church's agency cannot ever diverge from Christ's agency. If it is possible for the Church to do something that diverges from Christ's will, or to tell its membership to do something that diverges from Christ's will, then it is possible for us to be put in a position to have to choose between being loyal to Christ or being loyal to the Church. 

Link to post
6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

For the sake of discussion: Given that Christ atoned for all imperfection of any kind, there is no divergence of agency, from the eternal perspective, between Him and us and Him and the Church. We establish the converging agency by submitting our wills to His grace, and diverge when we do not. The Church (the operation of the governing Councils) does also. In this way, the agency of Christ, His Church, and His people do not diverge, only those individuals who refuse the convergence.

But the Church may also fail to submit its will to his grace, or "refuse the convergence."

  • Like 1
Link to post
27 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

But the Church may also fail to submit its will to his grace, or "refuse the convergence."

I see no evidence of that :) Once was enough!

It would require all councils to unanimously refuse.

The Church of the Firstborn Is where the convergence is headed, and that is not going away.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1
Link to post

@Dan McClellan and @bluebell -- This discussion of loyalty and how it intersects with whether Christ and the Church can be separated is interesting. It reminds me of what Pres. Oaks recounted in his talk during the Be One celebration. In describing his own experience with the priesthood and temple ban, he said that he did not receive a testimony of the reasons being given for the ban, but he determined to be loyal to the brethren and the Church, without explaining exactly what it meant to both disbelieve and be loyal.

It often seems to me that, in these cases, loyalty implies "disbelieving in silence". You can disbelieve anything you want that the Church teaches, just don't talk about it. It often seems that part of what drives "faith crises" (or the various overreactions IMO to faith crises) is when someone reaches a point where they no longer want to disbelieve in silence. But the Church has no "model" for how to disbelieve in specific teachings out loud and remain loyal.

Ever since his talk, I have wished Pres. Oaks or someone would talk more about what it looks like to disbelieve something the Church teaches while remaining loyal to the Church.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Indeed, supposedly Georg Cantor went mad thinking about infinities. Supposedly.

I am charmed to know that you know who Georg Cantor was!! :D Not many people do. What a brilliant mind, and the original "beautiful mind". 

Quote


But, Ahab is right  in that the Big Bang is not the beginning.

Ahab isn't right. The universe had to have a beginning, and one may as well call that beginning the Big Bang, even if we modify it by inflation. It's essential that it have a beginning. Or else we don't get an exaltation, just some second-hand corner of Father's universe. Even our Father had a beginning. And again, if He didn't then we get no exaltation. If you believe the scriptures, then we inherit all that the Father has. He's not giving us his universe and going on vacation somewhere in some Über-Bahamas. We get one of our very own, and that means we have to start one up. And it will have a beginning, for that very reason. Fred Hoyle didn't think things through, but without the fullness of the Gospel he had no compelling reason to think of the universe as anything other than an infinite steady state that was undergoing continuous creation -- which I will admit is a comforting thought.

Quote

I would also say accidentally right because based on my past interactions with him, he doesn't understand contemporary cosmology at all. Still, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

This unfortunately caused me to ROFLMAO. How uncharitable to compare Ahab with a blind squirrel! But he has frustrated me recently and badly enough that .... well, never mind.

Quote

Very interesting indeed. I enjoyed how he described using Cepheid variables as standard candles for distance determination, without overloading the reader with a technical explanation, or even mentioning the word "Cepheid" -- nor did it necessitate discussing how it was later discovered that there were two different types of Cepheids, with different periods, which revealed that many measurements had to be revised greatly. One thing he wrote, "...as the Universe expanded, cooled, and gravitated, we annihilated away our excess antimatter" kind of glossed over the problem that there should have been approximately equal amounts of matter and anti-matter in the beginning, and thus almost everything should have been annihilated at once. But this didn't happen, and we don't know why.

I'm into multiverses these days. And again, without multiverses there is no exaltation.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post
19 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Dan McClellan and @bluebell -- This discussion of loyalty and how it intersects with whether Christ and the Church can be separated is interesting. It reminds me of what Pres. Oaks recounted in his talk during the Be One celebration. In describing his own experience with the priesthood and temple ban, he said that he did not receive a testimony of the reasons being given for the ban, but he determined to be loyal to the brethren and the Church, without explaining exactly what it meant to both disbelieve and be loyal.

It often seems to me that, in these cases, loyalty implies "disbelieving in silence". You can disbelieve anything you want that the Church teaches, just don't talk about it. It often seems that part of what drives "faith crises" (or the various overreactions IMO to faith crises) is when someone reaches a point where they no longer want to disbelieve in silence. But the Church has no "model" for how to disbelieve in specific teachings out loud and remain loyal.

Ever since his talk, I have wished Pres. Oaks or someone would talk more about what it looks like to disbelieve something the Church teaches while remaining loyal to the Church.

For me it would look less like disbelieving in silence and more like disagreeing in private, but even that doesn't really explain it well because I think part of "loyalty in disagreement" is more than just not castigating people in public. 

I think it includes assuming the other's good intentions, believing them to be sincerely trying to do what they personally believe is correct (or what God wants) even if I disagree, and supporting decisions that are made out of my lane and for which I have no authority over, even if I would not have made them, because I trust that 1) I do not have all the information available that they do and 2) if they have erred God will intervene.

Speaking to your post, I don't know that silent disbelief is all that healthy but being silent while one works out their own beliefs with God on the subject can be a very good thing.  I also don't know that it makes sense to assume that Pres. Oaks was saying that he silently didn't believe when he said that he had no testimony.  He might have been saying that but I don't think that interpretation of his words is clear enough to run with. 

There are many things that I have no testimony of but that does not mean that I don't believe them.  It means that I don't know one way or the other.  But I agree that it would be nice to have him explain what he was saying a little more clearly.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

You keep raising the issue of loyalty to a single agent, but my concern has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one can remain loyal to a single agent even if they're imperfect. It has to do with the fact that there are two agents in question, and if the interests or demands of those agents diverge, we may potentially be put in a position where we have to choose which one to prioritize and which one to subordinate. Again, it's not a question of whether or not the Church is perfect, it's a question of whether or not the Church's interests and demands can possibly ever diverge from those of Christ, and you seem to acknowledge below that they can.

I get what you are saying.  What I'm saying is that in general (acknowledging that exceptions almost always exist but are rare enough that we do not need to argue them when discussing the rule), we are not put into positions where we have to choose whether to prioritize Christ or His Church.  I think that the divergences between Christ and His church, when they occur, is such that they are never severe enough to require us to pick sides. 

Quote

 That is precisely the case that is being made when someone says it is "impossible to be loyal to Christ and not be loyal to his Church." It is only impossible if the Church's agency cannot ever diverge from Christ's agency. If it is possible for the Church to do something that diverges from Christ's will, or to tell its membership to do something that diverges from Christ's will, then it is possible for us to be put in a position to have to choose between being loyal to Christ or being loyal to the Church.  

I've explained above why I don't agree with this statement.  I'll use a more real world example.

There are times when my husband's will and my will do not align.  Sometimes this means that he might tell our kids to do something, or make a decision regarding what he requires of one of them, that I don't agree with.  Does that mean that he has put my child into a position where they have to choose whether to be loyal to their dad and do what he said or be loyal to me and not do it?  Absolutely not.

I expect my kid to do what their dad told them, even if I don't agree with it.  And them not doing something, because they think I don't agree (even if they are right), is a really good way for them to get in trouble not just with their dad but with me too.  

When I don't agree with their dad (which happens) then I handle it with their dad and we work it out between us.  I do not ever authorize the kids to remove him from the parental loop that him and I have set up together.  As long as our relationship remains intact then it is impossible for them show their loyalty to me by being disloyal to him, even if I think he is dead wrong about something. 

Now I know that's not a perfect analogy because my husband and I are equals and we make mistakes equally, while the church/His leaders and Christ are not equals and Christ never makes mistakes, but hopefully it help explains my point of view in a clearer way.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Dan McClellan and @bluebell -- This discussion of loyalty and how it intersects with whether Christ and the Church can be separated is interesting. It reminds me of what Pres. Oaks recounted in his talk during the Be One celebration. In describing his own experience with the priesthood and temple ban, he said that he did not receive a testimony of the reasons being given for the ban, but he determined to be loyal to the brethren and the Church, without explaining exactly what it meant to both disbelieve and be loyal.

It often seems to me that, in these cases, loyalty implies "disbelieving in silence". You can disbelieve anything you want that the Church teaches, just don't talk about it. It often seems that part of what drives "faith crises" (or the various overreactions IMO to faith crises) is when someone reaches a point where they no longer want to disbelieve in silence. But the Church has no "model" for how to disbelieve in specific teachings out loud and remain loyal.

Ever since his talk, I have wished Pres. Oaks or someone would talk more about what it looks like to disbelieve something the Church teaches while remaining loyal to the Church.

I think not feeling a confirmation of the truth of the reasons for the ban and empathizing with those who suffered because of it are not the same as not learning something related to believe in a supportive way which is not disloyalty: "I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple." https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2018-06-01/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration-10994

When I was a new member back in 1975, I read all I could find about the Church. One of those books was Mormon Doctrine, and I found some of Elder McConkie's statements problematic -- just didn't feel right, and sometimes I found the tone off-putting. Yet I remained loyal to my covenants and the Church and raising my hand to sustain him and the other leaders in their offices and for their keys, which are where the rubber hits the road for any of us (without the offices filled and keys in operation we would not have baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, priesthood and temple covenants, etc.) Even as a new member, I knew I was not sustaining him as an author. :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get what you are saying.  What I'm saying is that in general (acknowledging that exceptions almost always exist but are rare enough that we do not need to argue them when discussing the rule), we are not put into positions where we have to choose whether to prioritize Christ or His Church.  I think that the divergences between Christ and His church, when they occur, is such that they are never severe enough to require us to pick sides. 

I disagree, but this also raises my initial concern of where "his church" ends and we begin. 

Quote

 

I've explained above why I don't agree with this statement.  I'll use a more real world example.

There are times when my husband's will and my will do not align.  Sometimes this means that he might tell our kids to do something, or make a decision regarding what he requires of one of them, that I don't agree with.  Does that mean that he has put my child into a position where they have to choose whether to be loyal to their dad and do what he said or be loyal to me and not do it?  Absolutely not.

 

If your child is aware that one parent has said "do X" and the other parent has said, "do not do X," then yes, they are put in a position where they have to decide whose will to prioritize.  

Quote

 

I expect my kid to do what their dad told them, even if I don't agree with it.  And them not doing something, because they think I don't agree (even if they are right), is a really good way for them to get in trouble not just with their dad but with me too.  

When I don't agree with their dad (which happens) then I handle it with their dad and we work it out between us.  I do not ever authorize the kids to remove him from the parental loop that him and I have set up together.  As long as our relationship remains intact then it is impossible for them show their loyalty to me by being disloyal to him, even if I think he is dead wrong about something. 

 

Which relies on you being inerrant in your execution of that ideal, just like the assumption that the Church's relationship with Christ's will is equally inerrant. Also, are you saying your kids are authorized to remove you from the parental loop? You're saying your husband can act unilaterally, but you can't. 

Quote

Now I know that's not a perfect analogy because my husband and I are equals and we make mistakes equally, while the church/His leaders and Christ are not equals and Christ never makes mistakes, but hopefully it help explains my point of view in a clearer way.

It still comes across as a rationalization for treating the Church and Christ as coterminous. 

Link to post
13 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@bluebell I agree that it is a bit of stretch, but that's why I wish that he or someone would explain how someone in the Church who wants to stay in the Church can disbelieve things and still be loyal.

This happens absolutely all the time. Loyalty to the Church is driven by multiple different forces that often have little to do with personal beliefs. If membership and participation in the Church makes someone happy or feel included, safe, fulfilled, or even if they just don't want to face the consequences and implications of leaving the Church, the tension of disbelieving something is rarely stronger. There are decades and decades of scholarship on why people join, stay in, leave, and antagonize all kinds of different social groups, including religious ones, and personal beliefs are rarely the most salient factors. 

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...