What does a prophet look/act like?

[Kevin Christensen]

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sorry didn't mean to quote MN

A Biblical guide? That also depends upon the assumption that a prophet and prophets have already been identified.

Speaking of Kuhn and paradigm shifts, surely if one commits to the testing of one dogma they necessarily reject the simultaneous testing of all other mutually exclusive paradigms.

It doesn't have to be a choice of choosing to test unprovable claims verses other unprovable claims. One could argue that all such attempts run contrary to living with integrity in what one can claim, and contrary to yielding the fruitfullness of that more simple, humble foundation.

It really is important to learn to manage uncertainty while holding fast to fact. I think that that is much more important than seeking a shortcut.

I should think the Bible tests at the very least, deserve mention, rather than ideological dismissal.  Yes, in gathering them, I was making that assumption that they could be relevant to testing the claims of Joseph Smith, among others, and it turns that what I found provides a way to test the validity of that assumption. They have relevance.  But, I linked another of my approaches, from the perspective of comparative religious experience, ("A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience"), rather than, Biblically specific tests for prophets.  Both of these approaches support my own "cause to believe."   

And it happens that I've also embraced other kinds of tests as well.  Anyone facing mutually exclusive paradigms ought to have some means of testing them which are not paradigm-dependent.  That is, we ought to be able to meaningfully ask, "Why us?" rather than dismissing everyone else as "Not us!"  

Regarding provability, "The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions," and that "Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved."  (Hofstatder, Godel, Escher and Bach, 18-19).   As Barbour says, "One cannot prove one’s most fundamental beliefs, but one can try to show how they function in the interpretation of experience." Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 124.

So Alma 32 distinguishes between absolute "knowing", "perfect" knowledge, and "faith", imperfect knowledge, supported by incomplete "cause to believe."  And what provides that "cause to believe" corresponds to what Kuhn identifies as the values that provide rational grounds for preferring one paradigm over another.  Testability, accuracy of key predictions [where each individual and community has a say in which predictions are key]. comprehensiveness and coherence (that is, breadth, depth, and how well one's paradigm integrates a wide range of observations and approaches), fruitfulness, especially the discovery of things from inside a paradigm that would not be seen from the outside, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

I agree that it is important to be able to manage uncertainty.  That is exactly why Alma 32 contrasts knowing compared to "imperfect knowledge" supported by "cause to believe" as an ongoing process.

Quote

I am not claiming that moral and religious experience or particular historical events can constitute a proof for the existence of a personal God. I am only saying that it is reasonable to interpret them theistically and that it makes a difference whether one does so or not. It makes a difference not only in one’s attitudes and behaviour but in the way one sees the world. One may notice and value features of individual and corporate life which one otherwise might have overlooked. (Barbour, 55–56.)

Quote

It is by no means easy to hold beliefs for which you would be willing to die, and yet to remain open to new insights; but it is precisely such a combination of commitment and enquiry that constitutes religious maturity.

If faith were simply the acceptance of revealed propositions or assent to propositions, it would be incompatible with doubt. But if faith means trust and commitment, it is compatible with considerable doubt about particular interpretations. Faith does not automatically turn uncertainties into certainties. What it does is take us beyond the detached speculative outlook which prevents the most significant sorts of experience; it enables us to live and act amid the uncertainties of life without pretensions of intellectual or moral infallibility. (Barbour, 136.)

Nor does my LDS faith require me to dismiss out of hand other religious claims. 

Quote

Alma realizes that his own wish to speak with a voice of thunder and resolve everything by forceful demonstration is wrong and that “the Lord doth grant unto all nations of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, all that he seeth fit that they should have” (Alma 29:8). Nephi remarks that God “speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3), which explains how “he remembereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33), how “all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world unto man are the typifying of him,” (2 Nephi 11:4), and how there are “divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men which were good” (Moroni 7:24).

I've searched out this kind of insight, over several decades, because of my personal "hunger and thirst" to know more. and understand better.  It's not a short cut.  Rather, it's the harvest that comes from concerted personal effort, including reaching out for help from other seekers from a range of perspectives.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 5, 2021 by Kevin Christensen

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I should think the Bible tests at the very least, deserve mention, rather than ideological dismissal.  Yes, in gathering them, I was making that assumption that they could be relevant to testing the claims of Joseph Smith, among others, and it turns that what I found provides a way to test the validity of that assumption. They have relevance.  But, I linked another of my approaches, from the perspective of comparative religious experience, ("A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience"), rather than, Biblically specific tests for prophets.  Both of these approaches support my own "cause to believe."   

And it happens that I've also embraced other kinds of tests as well.  Anyone facing mutually exclusive paradigms ought to have some means of testing them which are not paradigm-dependent.  That is, we ought to be able to meaningfully ask, "Why us?" rather than dismissing everyone else as "Not us!"  

Regarding provability, "The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions," and that "Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved."  (Hofstatder, Godel, Escher and Bach, 18-19).   As Barbour says, "One cannot prove one’s most fundamental beliefs, but one can try to show how they function in the interpretation of experience." Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 124.

So Alma 32 distinguishes between absolute "knowing", "perfect" knowledge, and "faith", imperfect knowledge, supported by incomplete "cause to believe."  And what provides that "cause to believe" corresponds to what Kuhn identifies as the values that provide rational grounds for preferring one paradigm over another.  Testability, accuracy of key predictions [where each individual and community has a say in which predictions are key]. comprehensiveness and coherence (that is, breath, depth, and how well one's paradigm integrates a wide range of observations and approaches), fruitfulness, especially the discovery of things from inside a paradigm that would not be seen from the outside, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

I agree that it is important to be able to manage uncertainty.  That is exactly why Alma 32 contrasts knowing compared to "imperfect knowledge" supported by "cause to believe" as an ongoing process.

Nor does my LDS faith require me to dismiss out of hand other religious claims. 

I've searched out this kind of insight, over several decades, because of my personal "hunger and thirst" to know more. and understand better.  It's not a short cut.  Rather, it's the harvest that comes from concerted personal effort, including reaching out for help from other seekers from a range of perspectives.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

What would Kuhn, Barbour, Hofstatder, etc... say about accepting another person as a spiritual authority?

To me, there is an inherent contradiction between doing that and thoughtfully evaluating truth and meaning, and the process of that search. Letting another person stand in place of that process is a substitute for the process. And maybe even an inefficient one at that, not even a good shortcut. I have searched for decades as well, and what I have found in four years post-belief is much more direct meaning, very accessible and fruitful, and beautiful in its simplicity: kindness. For me, the quest of a believer trying to make sense of the extraordinary claims of religion with a dependence on the relationship with prophets, in my experience, was a very significant distraction from growth and meaning.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Meadowchik

[Tacenda]

I wish we could say "president" only and not prophet. It's on the list of if you know you're in a cult when someone says they're a prophet or have ultimate authority. Not saying LDS church is a cult. Just that it doesn't look good for outsiders. Also, it mentions that a cult will not okay criticism of the leaders even if the criticism is true, remember Pres. Oaks saying that's not okay to criticize leaders even if true? 

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Tacenda

[Kevin Christensen]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What would Kuhn, Barbour, Hofstatder, etc... say about accepting another person as a spiritual authority?

To me, there is an inherent contradiction between doing that and thoughtfully evaluating truth and meaning, and the process of that search. Letting another person stand in place of that process is a substitute for the process. And maybe even an inefficient one at that, not even a good shortcut. I have searched for decades as well, and what I have found in four years post-belief is much more direct meaning, very accessible and fruitful, and beautiful in its simplicity: kindness. For me, the quest of a believer trying to make sense of the extraordinary claims of religion with a dependence on the relationship with prophets, in my experience, was a very significant distraction from growth and meaning.

Frankly, I do not see an inherent contradition.  Should I start by assuming that no one could possibly teach me anything that I could not figure out for myself?  I think of the blind men and the elephant.  Given that I am blind to a great deal, how much trust should I put in my own interpretation?  I have a responsibility to make an effort, to "seek out of the best books words of wisdom."  It does not say, seek out of first authority I come across, seek out words orthodoxy to bind me forever.  On the contrary, that sort of thing, either too much pride in my own ability, or too much deference to anyone else, strikes me as the first beams that I ought to remove from my own eye, if I expect to "see clearly."  I have to start by acknowledging that I don't know much, that my talents are limited just as my time is.  Other people know things I don't.  Why my should having a French teacher or a Math teacher or an English professor or my parents be a substitute or impediment to my own learning, rather than as valuable resources?  The presence of people who can teach me things I don't know and who see things differently than I do it's an inescapable part of life.  That is a good thing, I think.  Joseph Smith, I notice, does not just ask me to take his word for it.  Nor do his successors.  Nor do they just tell me to "trust my feelings."  Heart and mind should both be involved, left and right brain explorations. 

Back at SJSU, I had a class on Post Modernism, in which the teacher had us compare, among much else, James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, wherein Joyce decides that the only way to find his true self is to leave Ireland and his Catholic roots, with Seamus Heany's Station Island, wherein Heany decides the only way to come to understand his true self is to go back to Ireland, and examine his Catholic roots.   And right there I see Joseph Smith commenting that "By proving contrarities, truth is made manifest."  Truth being "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come."  Part of that the way things are, I realize, with a bit of awe and wonder, is that "there must needs be an opposition in all things."  As William Blake put it, "Without contraries, there is no progression."   Or as the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Grown puts it, as Position 6 of 9, a person comes to realize "He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth."

I can be an individual, and part of society.  I can both think on my own, and drink from the fountains of experience and thought offered by others.   I can even have personal spiritual experiences now and then, with no one between me and the divine.  And from Joseph Campbell, I get that the hero's journey involves not just a society into which we are born, but recurring "separation, initiation, and return."  The initiation involves our confrontation with the fact that many other people think and believe differently.  And the return involves returning with my own gifts to that society, that is, something of value that I had to find while separated in some way from the society and thought in which I was nurtured. 

Granted that Joseph Smith makes some rather extraordinary claims.   Should I uncritically accede to Sterling McMurrin's claim that he learned from a very young age, "younger than I can remember, that you don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation."  Should I accept that on McMurrin's authority, when McMurrin, despite his wide learning, admits that he had never bothered to read the book?  That, I notice, is trial by his childhood ideology, rather than an adult test of his childhood ideology.  It's an assertion, by what he admits is a child's insight, that closes a whole path of inquiry.  Joseph Smith makes the claim, and comes back with not only a book, an testable one, and witnesses, and much else, including all sorts of scandals, critics, and scoffers, and community demands and restrictions.  A path is open, to take, or not.  As Robert Frost says, "Two paths diverged in a wood, and I chose the one less traveled by.  And that has made all the difference."  One the things I get from Kuhn is that paradigm testing requires both a comparison, and a set of critera that are not ideologically dependent.  In testing Joseph Smith's extraordinary claims in a variety of ways, some of which I was the first to make (that is other people were not standing in those places and substituting for my personal process), and many that I would have never even imagined if left on my own, I happen to have come across a great many extraordinary things.  (I have published around 40 essays at this point, documenting some of that.)  And it is in the comparing those things with the offerings of skeptics and critics, that I see most clearly what is most extraordinary, as well as what is part of the common spiritual heritage of humanity.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 5, 2021 by Kevin Christensen

[Damien the Leper]

On 2/4/2021 at 2:16 PM, MiserereNobis said:

And of course this is where the LDS church and the Catholic church part ways  There is no restoration needed, because there was no apostasy. You obviously believe differently. If I'm using my newly found LDS terminology correctly, we believe that the last dispensation was with Jesus, while you believe the last dispensation was with Joseph Smith.

I'm actually happy to have learned about dispensations. It will allow me to explain what Catholics mean by no more public revelation.

No more public revelation since Jesus means that Jesus was the last dispensation.

It is true that I believe in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium, but the way you said it was condescending. And I don't believe these things just because someone told me to. I have used my reason and have had spiritual experiences as my confirmation. The Blessed Virgin Mary was instrumental in my conversion -- her gentle love and guidance led me to the Catholic Church. I feel the love and grace of God during most Masses and almost without fail during confession. I became and remain a Catholic for probably the same reasons you became and remain LDS.

I have read some parts of the Book of Mormon, skipping around here and there. It seems like a standard religious text. I had no particular intellectual or spiritual experience with it. While I am obviously interested in Mormonism (hence my presence here), I am a firm and faithful Catholic. My years of participation on this board has given me no reason to question my faith.

I am grateful, in part, to Mormonism as it assisted in guiding me to the Catholic faith. 

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What would Kuhn, Barbour, Hofstatder, etc... say about accepting another person as a spiritual authority?

To me, there is an inherent contradiction between doing that and thoughtfully evaluating truth and meaning, and the process of that search. Letting another person stand in place of that process is a substitute for the process. And maybe even an inefficient one at that, not even a good shortcut. I have searched for decades as well, and what I have found in four years post-belief is much more direct meaning, very accessible and fruitful, and beautiful in its simplicity: kindness. For me, the quest of a believer trying to make sense of the extraordinary claims of religion with a dependence on the relationship with prophets, in my experience, was a very significant distraction from growth and meaning.

Before I can accept the idea that somebody else might know more than I do about something I need to first learn the same thing for myself.  I don't just blindly believe what someone else says, accepting their word as the truth.  I accept whatever they say as their own opinion/perspective and then I mull that over for a while as I dig in to do some research on that for myself.  If it's really the truth, or if what they suggest to do really works for whatever purpose it applies to, then whatever they are saying should at least make some good sense from a reasonable perspective.  Prayer, for example. I didn't just accept what people told me about prayer, but I could see that some of what some people told me sounded reasonable.  If I want God to tell me something, I should at least ask him a question or let him know I want him to talk to me. And then some people told me I needed to be careful and not just assume that whoever talked to me was God.  So, okay, that also seemed reasonable. So then it became an issue of needing to figure out who was speaking to me when I was praying/talking to God, when someone was talking to me.  I say talking but generally I'm just talking about someone communicating with me, giving me ideas, while I was specifically praying to God. And it's not always easy to know who is talking to me, I will tell you, so I just started pegging them into 2 different groups.  Those who gave/give me bad ideas vs those who gave/give me good ideas.  Now I just call the good voices God and the bad voices Satan, as I understand them to be the ring leaders.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I should think the Bible tests at the very least, deserve mention, rather than ideological dismissal.  Yes, in gathering them, I was making that assumption that they could be relevant to testing the claims of Joseph Smith, among others, and it turns that what I found provides a way to test the validity of that assumption. They have relevance.  But, I linked another of my approaches, from the perspective of comparative religious experience, ("A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience"), rather than, Biblically specific tests for prophets.  Both of these approaches support my own "cause to believe."   

And it happens that I've also embraced other kinds of tests as well.  Anyone facing mutually exclusive paradigms ought to have some means of testing them which are not paradigm-dependent.  That is, we ought to be able to meaningfully ask, "Why us?" rather than dismissing everyone else as "Not us!"  

Regarding provability, "The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions," and that "Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved."  (Hofstatder, Godel, Escher and Bach, 18-19).   As Barbour says, "One cannot prove one’s most fundamental beliefs, but one can try to show how they function in the interpretation of experience." Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 124.

So Alma 32 distinguishes between absolute "knowing", "perfect" knowledge, and "faith", imperfect knowledge, supported by incomplete "cause to believe."  And what provides that "cause to believe" corresponds to what Kuhn identifies as the values that provide rational grounds for preferring one paradigm over another.  Testability, accuracy of key predictions [where each individual and community has a say in which predictions are key]. comprehensiveness and coherence (that is, breadth, depth, and how well one's paradigm integrates a wide range of observations and approaches), fruitfulness, especially the discovery of things from inside a paradigm that would not be seen from the outside, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

I agree that it is important to be able to manage uncertainty.  That is exactly why Alma 32 contrasts knowing compared to "imperfect knowledge" supported by "cause to believe" as an ongoing process.

Nor does my LDS faith require me to dismiss out of hand other religious claims. 

I've searched out this kind of insight, over several decades, because of my personal "hunger and thirst" to know more. and understand better.  It's not a short cut.  Rather, it's the harvest that comes from concerted personal effort, including reaching out for help from other seekers from a range of perspectives.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

This may be a good time to bring up something I have been contemplating now for a while, and that is starting a thread on William James' Radical empiricism.  As it happens this view is highly relevant to this thread and LDS beliefs in general.  I think the wikipedia article on this subject is well written, at least better than I am able to summarize the view and explain it to general audiences and I highly recommend it!   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

First let me give a quick summary about why I have found this view relevant to Mormonism- yes, I am using that word intentionally, to separate "Mormon Studies" from the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  This is more about what one might call "theology" than it is to scripture, because we know that the church properly differentiates, in my opinion, between scripture and theology- which is "the philosophies of men"

In short I believe that Radical Empiricism can be adapted to be a way of interpreting scripture, a glass through which we can "see" scripture "darkly" - that is, it does not represent scripture but provides a framework- or a useful tool,  through which we can see scripture temporarily, as long as we need to use that tool- and then put it away in our scriptural studies until we need it again.

The essential premise of pragmatic Radical Empiricism as first presented by William James and later adapted by John Dewey, Eugene Fontinell, Richard Rorty, Thomas Nagel, and other Neo Pragmatists who laid the groundwork for the world view (Instrumentalism) demonstrated in Kuhn's work on the concept of paradigms, is that the ordinary "Empiricism" which supposedly is based completely on human experience and its description, has not been radical enough because it deliberately restricts itself to physicalism and leaves out important facts about relational aspects including meaning and significance of objects and events.

Suppose someone from another planet asked for an "empirical description of the experience of a charging bear" and what kind of effects that experience had on the psyche.  If one was restricted to an ordinary scientific account, the observation might include facts about the weight of the bear, the velocity at which he was moving, the wavelengths of the various sounds the bear was making, the chemical changes in the brain of the person being chased etc,  but nothing about the significance to the person being chased that she might soon loose her life.   In short, the "empirical" description using scientific terminology would not include ANYTHING about what it's "like" to be chased by a bear and thus was NOT an adequate description of the EXPERIENCE of being chased by a bear.

James therefore found such an "empiricism" to be totally inadequate to describing what was "really happening" in that event and therefore it was not fully "empirical" at all.

A Radical Empiricism on the other hand must include significance and meaning and many other features of the "real experience" in order to make the words used in the description to "correspond"  in any real sense to the full reality of the raw experience!   And so what passes as "empiricism" is not really "empirical" at all.

From the wikipedia article link posted above:

Quote

Radical empiricism is a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: Any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.^[1]

.... James put forth the doctrine because he thought ordinary empiricism, inspired by the advances in physical science, has or had the tendency to emphasize 'whirling particles' at the expense of the bigger picture: connections, causality, meaning. Both elements, James claims, are equally present in experience and both need to be accounted for.

The observation that our adherence to science seems to put us in a quandary is not exclusive to James. For example, Bertrand Russell notes the paradox in his Analysis of Matter (1927): we appeal to ordinary perception to arrive at our physical theories, yet those same theories seem to undermine that everyday perception, which is rich in meaning.

Radical empiricism relates to discussions about direct versus indirect realism as well as to early twentieth-century discussions against the idealism of influential philosophers like Josiah Royce. This is how neo-realists like William Pepperell Montague and Ralph Barton Perry interpreted James.

The conclusion that our worldview does not need transempirical support is also important in discussions about the adequacy of naturalistic descriptions of meaning and intentionality, which James attempts to provide, in contrast to phenomenological approaches or some forms of reductionism that claim that meaning is an illusion.^{[citation needed]}

"Transempirical" in this context means 'that which cannot be experienced". 

We cannot experience "reality" if reality is defined as atoms and particle swirling through space, but we CAN experience readings on equipment we "interpret as" being caused by atoms and particles.  "Now we see through a glass darkly...."

Now how is this relevant to the LDS world view?

Simply, if God is experienced, or can be experienced, or regarding religion in general, religious experience is a valid and rational and empirical way of understanding the effects of religious belief, its meaning and associations are real in every way, they can be discussed in terms of their effects on persons and societies etc.

To speak about the EFFECTS of BELIEFS on us and the EXPERIENCE we or others have reacting to those beliefs are as rational to speak about as particles whirling through space and time.   We do not see the particles but we see their effects on various meters etc.  One reading or another may "mean" we have cured cancer!!   But we are not seeing the affects of that meter reading on humanity

Similarly we do not see God but we do "see the effects" of belief in God in our lives, and the purpose and meaning that has upon us and society in general.  Belief in God may be more important in many ways than curing cancer!   That is potentially a completely testable proposition.

If the BELIEF in the atonement for example, brings me peace and gives me meaning in life, that belief is therefore NOT "irrational' nor an "illusion" and we can freely speak of sentences like "I know the church is true" as a perfectly formed rational statement.  We know what that means within the context of the church and that community- but I have not gotten into that here at this time.

Kevin touches lightly on it when he says:

Quote

 

Testability, accuracy of key predictions [where each individual and community has a say in which predictions are key]. comprehensiveness and coherence (that is, breadth, depth, and how well one's paradigm integrates a wide range of observations and approaches), fruitfulness, especially the discovery of things from inside a paradigm that would not be seen from the outside, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

And so when sometimes I talk about "testability" I may sometimes do it wearing my "theology" hat and sometimes simply a member of the church.

If I say something like "It is the BELIEF in the atonement which frees us from guilt", I am speaking in a theological context.

The only way I can say "The atonement has changed my life and I know that Jesus died for MY sins" in a way which is "empirical" is to say, from the outside as an observer may say about my life, is to say "BELIEF in the atonement changed Bukowski's life".   That is a simply empirical statement.  The belief indeed cause a change in my life

But saying "I know the church is true and that Jesus died for my sins" is a different viewpoint- it is that of a believer.

So if I am communicating to a bunch of critics and want to express it in a language game that community may understand I may speak strictly about beliefs.

If however I am in church and testifying of my personal knowledge and experience I will speak from the second viewpoint- that of a firm true believer.

I think that is a very important distinction we need to observe in trying to communicate with each other

Edited February 5, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

...if I am communicating to a bunch of critics and want to express it in a language game that community may understand I may speak strictly about beliefs.

If however I am in church and testifying of my personal knowledge and experience I will speak from the second viewpoint- that of a firm true believer.

I think that is a very important distinction we need to observe in trying to communicate with each other.

I think I agree with this sentiment and usually try to communicate in such a way that both groups can understand what I'm saying... whether they believe what I believe or they do not believe as I do.

And I would still think that people could either believe me or choose not to believe me even if I gave them radical empirical evidence to support what I was saying.  That's just the way we are, as people, I think.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Ahab

[3DOP]

On 2/3/2021 at 10:51 PM, Calm said:

I have known a couple of Catholics who have said the same thing, including one who has studied the Restored Gospel in depth.  He chose to become Catholic because he never received a witness of the Restored Gospel iirc, logically he saw it as between Catholicism or the Restoration.  Reformation made no sense to him due to authority.  I can’t remember if he ever discussed Orthodox though.  It has been forever since he posted on this board and ZLMB has disappeared from the internet, so not sure if I can find where he says this, but will try.

David has since withdrawn from official Catholicism as currently inconsistent with history if I understand him correctly as of 2010...will need to do more research to find current stance.  3D0P (Rory) may be able to provide the info as it appears he reads David’s blog where I haven’t for a long time.

Hey Calm...

I wish I hadn't missed this thread. But it has been a good read so far. Miserere needs no help anyway.

I just talked to Dave a couple of hours ago. It is a while ago already and my memory may be failing. But I have never understood his decision to discontinue his association with the Catholic Church with historical problems.

You were replying to Ipod above about someone named Paul Dunn, who I think was a discredited apostle or something like that. I doubt I would have had much opinion about that. I could not figure out what was "the same thing" that Dave certainly said, and maybe me too?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

could not figure out what was "the same thing" that Dave certainly said, and maybe me too?

It was the part that this summarizes: 

Quote

It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times,or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”

Iirc, David said he was looking for evidence of the Apostasy among other things as key to determining whether the Roman Catholic faith or the Restored Church was the one with authority. I can’t remember if he ever explained why he didn’t include the Orthodox faith as an alternative. (Maybe he once had and I have forgotten).  I can’t remember either if you also saw it this way...I am thinking not, but I have had other Catholic friends who dismiss the Protestants as having a too weak claim to authority, etc. and see Restoration of some sort as the only viable alternative to the Catholic faith...though that doesn’t actually mean that forces the Restored Church to be that restoration if the Catholic Church either lost or never had apostolic authority, but they saw restoration as needing something similar to what we believe happened to Joseph (visions and angels conferring apostolic authority).

note:  The poster was simply saying the story the quote came from sounded like a story Brother Dunn had told, though that was wrong and it wasn’t his.  In essence IPod was implying it was either embellished or fake, but one members would love to hear and pass on.  My comment was meant to say it was imo realistic based on my own experience....though I see it as limited in that the choice doesn’t include all possibilities or rather explain conditions that narrow it to those two, such as the assumption that there is a Christ, imo).
 

Paul Dunn was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (see https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2020-05-27/general-authority-area-seventy-general-officer-area-presidency-church-organization-184814 ) and was a very popular speaker and writer in the Church until he was confronted by investigative reporters and admitted he embellished his stories, heavily...at which point he offered an apology and retired iirc. Can’t remember if he went so far as creating completely false ones or was more appropriating others’ experiences for his own, too be honest I have never been a fan of that type of speaking (overly dramatic sports and war stories) so I didn’t pay that much attention when it happened beyond being sad for the damage and pain he had caused himself, his family, and others. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Miserere needs no help anyway.

Oh, I definitely need help! But I'm glad that you find my explanation of our faith adequate. I know I relied on the post Vatican II catechism (with its references to Vatican II), but I wanted to give an accurate picture of the Catholic Church today.

Thanks, Rory.

+PAX+

Jesse

 

[3DOP]

On 2/5/2021 at 3:37 PM, Damien the Leper said:

I am grateful, in part, to Mormonism as it assisted in guiding me to the Catholic faith. 

Absolutely Damien. Me too. 

It became clear that the Protestant response to claims of need to merely reform was inadequate. (This is where LDS claims were very helpful in the early 90's.). Becuase of LDS exposure of Protestant failings I could be Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim (which sect?), LDS (which sect?), or Restorationist-in-Waiting. It made me dig in to the question of a Great Apostasy. Briefly, what I found was that I wanted to have the faith that subdued pagan Rome, and made it freely and penitently kneel to the God of Heaven. This cut out all but Rome or possibly Orthodoxy. I decided I was with Christ's martyrs of the first three plus centuries. I wanted to worship as they did, to believe as they did, and to honor their faithful witness. I love the Church which tenderly and lovingly gave them the strength and courage of lions in the face of their persecutors. So much more. I could never pray now about whether that Church was apostate. That is what you do, if you pray about whether the Koran, or Book of Mormon, or writings of Bahaullah (Bahai Faith) are true.  

It isn't about praying about the Catholic Bible, or the short Protestant Bible, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon. Without identifying the Church, what good is it to know what Bible to try to understand? Identify the Church first. If you get happy because you have the true words...without the Church it profits nothing. It leads either to pride or despair. Christ's Church knows what Christ's words mean. Find the Church to find the truth.

Rory 

[3DOP]

On 2/21/2021 at 9:16 PM, Calm said:

It was the part that this summarizes: 

Iirc, David said he was looking for evidence of the Apostasy among other things as key to determining whether the Roman Catholic faith or the Restored Church was the one with authority. I can’t remember if he ever explained why he didn’t include the Orthodox faith as an alternative. (Maybe he once had and I have forgotten).  I can’t remember either if you also saw it this way...I am thinking not, but I have had other Catholic friends who dismiss the Protestants as having a too weak claim to authority, etc. and see Restoration of some sort as the only viable alternative to the Catholic faith...though that doesn’t actually mean that forces the Restored Church to be that restoration if the Catholic Church either lost or never had apostolic authority, but they saw restoration as needing something similar to what we believe happened to Joseph (visions and angels conferring apostolic authority).

note:  The poster was simply saying the story the quote came from sounded like a story Brother Dunn had told, though that was wrong and it wasn’t his.  In essence IPod was implying it was either embellished or fake, but one members would love to hear and pass on.  My comment was meant to say it was imo realistic based on my own experience....though I see it as limited in that the choice doesn’t include all possibilities or rather explain conditions that narrow it to those two, such as the assumption that there is a Christ, imo).
 

Paul Dunn was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (see https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2020-05-27/general-authority-area-seventy-general-officer-area-presidency-church-organization-184814 ) and was a very popular speaker and writer in the Church until he was confronted by investigative reporters and admitted he embellished his stories, heavily...at which point he offered an apology and retired iirc. Can’t remember if he went so far as creating completely false ones or was more appropriating others’ experiences for his own, too be honest I have never been a fan of that type of speaking (overly dramatic sports and war stories) so I didn’t pay that much attention when it happened beyond being sad for the damage and pain he had caused himself, his family, and others. 

No calm...This was how I saw it: "...evidence of the Apostasy among other things as key to determining whether the Roman Catholic faith or the Restored Church was the one with authority." I would change that to a Restored "religion of some kind". I touch on this in my last post to Damien on this thread.  

[Damien the Leper]

15 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Absolutely Damien. Me too. 

It became clear that the Protestant response to claims of need to merely reform was inadequate. (This is where LDS claims were very helpful in the early 90's.). Becuase of LDS exposure of Protestant failings I could be Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim (which sect?), LDS (which sect?), or Restorationist-in-Waiting. It made me dig in to the question of a Great Apostasy. Briefly, what I found was that I wanted to have the faith that subdued pagan Rome, and made it freely and penitently kneel to the God of Heaven. This cut out all but Rome or possibly Orthodoxy. I decided I was with Christ's martyrs of the first three plus centuries. I wanted to worship as they did, to believe as they did, and to honor their faithful witness. I love the Church which tenderly and lovingly gave them the strength and courage of lions in the face of their persecutors. So much more. I could never pray now about whether that Church was apostate. That is what you do, if you pray about whether the Koran, or Book of Mormon, or writings of Bahaullah (Bahai Faith) are true.  

It isn't about praying about the Catholic Bible, or the short Protestant Bible, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon. Without identifying the Church, what good is it to know what Bible to try to understand? Identify the Church first. If you get happy because you have the true words...without the Church it profits nothing. It leads either to pride or despair. Christ's Church knows what Christ's words mean. Find the Church to find the truth.

Rory 

Beautifully well said. Thanks, Rory!

[Tacenda]

Thoughts on this? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2020-05-0030-follow-prophets-they-speak-for-god?lang=eng&fbclid=IwAR0yQ0v7V4ZbUZSQAhXozqBwLdK8aSi0g5wvDsYu4NA_yzu5XBxynNExOLo

 

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thoughts on this? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2020-05-0030-follow-prophets-they-speak-for-god?lang=eng&fbclid=IwAR0yQ0v7V4ZbUZSQAhXozqBwLdK8aSi0g5wvDsYu4NA_yzu5XBxynNExOLo

 

Prophets, by definition, are men who speak for God or who say what God tells them to say.  Women who do that are called prophetesses.  And the tricky part is knowing how to tell when a man or woman is doing that.

[CV75]

On 2/3/2021 at 4:24 PM, smac97 said:

How do we know?

Ultimately i think we obtain a spiritual conviction of the claims per Alma 32.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Ultimately i think we obtain a spiritual conviction of the claims per Alma 32.

Which is also how we find out whether or not Alma 32 was inspired by God, ironically.  So ultimately it is up to each of us to determine for ourselves, individually, by what each of us feels and believes God is telling us, individually..

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Which is also how we find out whether or not Alma 32 was inspired by God, ironically.  So ultimately it is up to each of us to determine for ourselves, individually, by what each of us feels and believes God is telling us, individually..

I didn't like it...at...all. 

These poor kids need to know that they can go straight to God and follow Jesus' example. I thought prophets aren't infallible. This video is straight up indoctrinating these young children. Do they look comfortable to you? Not to me. And what about the prophets that have led people astray? Or who got it wrong? They weren't taken away by God. I thought the church was centering mostly on the Saviour currently. Now it's back to the prophet worship. Sorry, this just upset me so much. 

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I didn't like it...at...all. 

I don't really care whether or not you or anyone else doesn't like what a prophet of God teaches.  You can talk that over with God for yourself.

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

These poor kids need to know that they can go straight to God and follow Jesus' example.

They are taught that among many other things they are taught by their parents and others.

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I thought prophets aren't infallible.

Again, by definition, a prophet is a man who speaks for God by saying what God has taught or told him to say.  And prophets are always infallible.  It's just that sometimes a man is speaking as a man and not as a prophet of God.  But the same man can speak for God at some other time when he is then speaking as both a man and a prophet of God.

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This video is straight up indoctrinating these young children.

When the parents of children know a man has been designated by God to be one of his prophets, it is only natural that those parents teach their children that they know that man is a prophet of God.  Later, as the children grow and learn to discover more things for themselves, they can then find out for themselves if that man really was or is a prophet of God, independent of what their parents tell them.

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do they look comfortable to you? Not to me.

Children are squirmy by nature.  They have a lot of energy and they seldom like to sit still.  And I do not accept you as a mind reader who always knows what children or other people are thinking or feeling.

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And what about the prophets that have led people astray?

Impossible.  Prophets of God do not ever lead anyone astray from God.  Do I need to tell you, again, what the definition of a prophet of God is?

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Or who got it wrong? They weren't taken away by God. I thought the church was centering mostly on the Saviour currently. Now it's back to the prophet worship. Sorry, this just upset me so much. 

I'm not going to take the time to respond to any of this.  I hope what I did say before this point is enough to straighten you out.

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't really care whether or not you or anyone else doesn't like what a prophet of God teaches.  You can talk that over with God for yourself.

They are taught that among many other things they are taught by their parents and others.

Again, by definition, a prophet is a man who speaks for God by saying what God has taught or told him to say.  And prophets are always infallible.  It's just that sometimes a man is speaking as a man and not as a prophet of God.  But the same man can speak for God at some other time when he is then speaking as both a man and a prophet of God.

When the parents of children know a man has been designated by God to be one of his prophets, it is only natural that those parents teach their children that they know that man is a prophet of God.  Later, as the children grow and learn to discover more things for themselves, they can then find out for themselves if that man really was or is a prophet of God, independent of what their parents tell them.

Children are squirmy by nature.  They have a lot of energy and they seldom like to sit still.  And I do not accept you as a mind reader who always knows what children or other people are thinking or feeling.

Impossible.  Prophets of God do not ever lead anyone astray from God.  Do I need to tell you, again, what the definition of a prophet of God is?

I'm not going to take the time to respond to any of this.  I hope what I did say before this point is enough to straighten you out.

That's not what this quote is saying according to FairMormon. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible#Question:_Do_Mormons_consider_their_prophets_to_be_infallible.3F

We consider God, and him alone, infallible; therefore his revealed word to us cannot be doubted, though we may be in doubt some times about the knowledge which we obtain from human sources, and occasionally be obliged to admit that something which we had considered to be a fact, was really only a theory.^[4]

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That's not what this quote is saying according to FairMormon. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible#Question:_Do_Mormons_consider_their_prophets_to_be_infallible.3F

We consider God, and him alone, infallible; therefore his revealed word to us cannot be doubted, though we may be in doubt some times about the knowledge which we obtain from human sources, and occasionally be obliged to admit that something which we had considered to be a fact, was really only a theory.^[4]

Whoever said that was speaking as either a man or a woman (or boy or girl) when he or she said that and not as a prophet or prophetess of God when he or she said that.

And how do I know that, you may sincerely ask?  Because when God says something through a man or woman as a prophet or prophetess of God then that man or woman is speaking for God and what is said is not wrong.

[InCognitus]

Related to the topic of this thread, I just noticed this question posted yesterday on the Christianity Stack Exchange web site:

Quote

What makes a prophet? I'd like a bit of contrast - so let's say Roman Catholic and LDS

Answers can address either denomination or both. My most recent understanding on the subject was that a prophet loses awareness (a trance) and then receives the word or message of God. However, I don't know if these are the criteria per se, or if they are part of an overarching theme. (My follow-up question will be, what do we call people like King David or the sons of Korach - but please don't answer that here.)

No answers so far.