The need to believe

[longview]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not slandering anyone.  Just pointing out that he was just as capable of being as wrong on Adam as he was on the negro.

And I don't reject anything Joseph taught, although I do recognize that Kirtland era Joseph operated with less understanding than Nauvoo era Joseph.

You are still copping out.  Elder Petersen also quoted JS in the Nauvoo period.  It is incumbent on you to respond point by point his talk from 1980.

[Teancum]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And so was Napoleon.

Does't matter one bit relevant to what they accomplished.

Yes it certainly does. Well maybe not for what they accomplished but it does for whether or not I should trust them to influence my life.  Especially for someone who claimed he was God's Prophet for the Latter days. Napoleon though, grand that he was, never claimed such a thing. Napoleon does not say "trust me, I speak for God." Joseph does. In all your philosophical knowledge that you like to talk about I am amazed you cannot see the difference.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes it certainly does. Well maybe not for what they accomplished but it does for whether or not I should trust them to influence my life.  Especially for someone who claimed he was God's Prophet for the Latter days. Napoleon though, grand that he was, never claimed such a thing. Napoleon does not say "trust me, I speak for God." Joseph does. In all your philosophical knowledge that you like to talk about I am amazed you cannot see the difference.

Of course I see it. And you have never understood the philosophy I keep repeating again and again.

You must not trust Joseph Smith, you must trust in God, and testimony.

You must see the results of his work and see him as a philosopher.

And philosophy justifies the understanding that what gives you morals or meaning in life need not be justified by facts alone, in fact it cannot be.

What taught you murder is wrong?

How do you know it is wrong to steal?

How did you choose your occupation?  How about your politics?

Were there ever any people in your political party who lied, or were narcissists?  And you accept what they stand for?

Do you judge your favorite musicians or authors by their morals, politics or beliefs?

Have you loved a book written by someone you might not trust?

For that matter what is keeping you here for all these years?

I am amazed you cannot grasp the concept.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course I see it. And you have never understood the philosophy I keep repeating again and again.

You must not trust Joseph Smith, you must trust in God, and testimony.

You must see the results of his work and see him as a philosopher.

And philosophy justifies the understanding that what gives you morals or meaning in life need not be justified by facts alone, in fact it cannot be.

What taught you murder is wrong?

How do you know it is wrong to steal?

How did you choose your occupation?  How about your politics?

Were there ever any people in your political party who lied, or were narcissists?  And you accept what they stand for?

Do you judge your favorite musicians or authors by their morals, politics or beliefs?

Have you loved a book written by someone you might not trust?

For that matter what is keeping you here for all these years?

I am amazed you cannot grasp the concept.

 

 

You'e not asking me, but my moral compass teaches me that things are wrong such as hurting others by stealing, murdering, lying etc. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

my moral compass teaches me that things are wrong such as hurting others by stealing, murdering, lying etc. 

and what is the source of your moral compass?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes it certainly does. Well maybe not for what they accomplished but it does for whether or not I should trust them to influence my life.  Especially for someone who claimed he was God's Prophet for the Latter days. Napoleon though, grand that he was, never claimed such a thing. Napoleon does not say "trust me, I speak for God." Joseph does. In all your philosophical knowledge that you like to talk about I am amazed you cannot see the difference.

I don't trust a soul that says they speak for God if what they are saying doesn't seem right, I guess I'm jaded now, where before the main thing that made our church stand out was that we have living prophets. And how important that is to have their voices. I enjoy their wisdom but am saddened that some prophets got it wrong and it hurt people...I'm speaking of polygamy with young girls, and the racist views that were adopted and really shouldn't have if the prophet was doing what a just and loving God would have them do. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

and what is the source of your moral compass?

Inborn from God.

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

and what is the source of your moral compass?

Fun article:

https://thecreative.cafe/are-human-beings-born-with-a-moral-compass-a44748c779c7

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Fun article:

https://thecreative.cafe/are-human-beings-born-with-a-moral-compass-a44748c779c7

Virtual upvote!

How we got it is PHILOSOPHICALLY actually pretty irrelevant- though I like the article and agree with it.  I of course KNOW it comes from a sense inside of me- from God- but it still must manifest itself somehow physically because after all our brains are a big ball  of human flesh.   Besides I hear an "intelligence " speaking to me from the same channel- call it God or my unconscious- it doesn't matter philosophically- what matters is that it exists!  But it tells me things my unconscious doesn't know!

So for my money it cannot be my own unconscious!!

It could be inborn as much as having a nose is inborn- a product of evolution.

Or it could be a product of God.    Or BOTH!

The bottom line philosophically is THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING telling us right from wrong that at this point science has not acknowledged exists- or at least following that inborn sense is seen as irrelevant to what passes for positivistic "logic"

The answer is that that sense is just as real as chemical reactions, or our noses, arms and legs, etc!

For those of us who are Radical Empiricists, as part of human experience, it is crucial to understanding human beings and what is real or rational or whatever.  Present supposedly scientific "empiricism" has a lot to learn about the reality of what we call "spirit"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

Edited April 4, 2021 by mfbukowski

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Virtual upvote!

How we got it is PHILOSOPHICALLY actually pretty irrelevant- though I like the article and agree with it.  I of course KNOW it comes from a sense inside of me- from God- but it still must manifest itself somehow physically because after all our brains are a big ball  of human flesh.   Besides I hear an "intelligence " speaking to me from the same channel- call it God or my unconscious- it doesn't matter philosophically- what matters is that it exists!  But it tells me things my unconscious doesn't know!

So for my money it cannot be my own unconscious!!

It could be inborn as much as having a nose is inborn- a product of evolution.

Or it could be a product of God.    Or BOTH!

The bottom line philosophically is THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING telling us right from wrong that at this point science has not acknowledged exists- or at least following that inborn sense is seen as irrelevant to what passes for positivistic "logic"

The answer is that that sense is just as real as chemical reactions, or our noses, arms and legs, etc!

For those of us who are Radical Empiricists, as part of human experience, it is crucial to understanding human beings and what is real or rational or whatever.  Present supposedly scientific "empiricism" has a lot to learn about the reality of what we call "spirit"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

William James would be proud. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Virtual upvote!

How we got it is PHILOSOPHICALLY actually pretty irrelevant- though I like the article and agree with it.  I of course KNOW it comes from a sense inside of me- from God- but it still must manifest itself somehow physically because after all our brains are a big ball  of human flesh.   Besides I hear an "intelligence " speaking to me from the same channel- call it God or my unconscious- it doesn't matter philosophically- what matters is that it exists!  But it tells me things my unconscious doesn't know!

So for my money it cannot be my own unconscious!!

It could be inborn as much as having a nose is inborn- a product of evolution.

Or it could be a product of God.    Or BOTH!

The bottom line philosophically is THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING telling us right from wrong that at this point science has not acknowledged exists- or at least following that inborn sense is seen as irrelevant to what passes for positivistic "logic"

The answer is that that sense is just as real as chemical reactions, or our noses, arms and legs, etc!

For those of us who are Radical Empiricists, as part of human experience, it is crucial to understanding human beings and what is real or rational or whatever.  Present supposedly scientific "empiricism" has a lot to learn about the reality of what we call "spirit"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

Virtual vote backatcha since I can't give upvotes. I've never forgotten a post you made a while back that the kingdom of God can dwell within us. Thanks for that!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Virtual vote backatcha since I can't give upvotes. I've never forgotten a post you made a while back that the kingdom of God can dwell within us. Thanks for that!

At present that's the only place it CAN dwell-  it's sure as &^#$,  ahem, it's a sure thing  that we ain't livin in it today except if it's in our hearts  !!!  🤪

 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course I see it. And you have never understood the philosophy I keep repeating again and again.

You must not trust Joseph Smith, you must trust in God, and testimony.

You must see the results of his work and see him as a philosopher.

And philosophy justifies the understanding that what gives you morals or meaning in life need not be justified by facts alone, in fact it cannot be.

What taught you murder is wrong?

How do you know it is wrong to steal?

How did you choose your occupation?  How about your politics?

Were there ever any people in your political party who lied, or were narcissists?  And you accept what they stand for?

Do you judge your favorite musicians or authors by their morals, politics or beliefs?

Have you loved a book written by someone you might not trust?

For that matter what is keeping you here for all these years?

I am amazed you cannot grasp the concept.

 

 

I have to determine whether I can trust JS and whether God is speaking to him (if God even exists). When I prayed many years ago for a testimony of Smith and the resort oration it was based only on limited knowledge. As my knowledge expanded that changed the picture. From what I understand about God, which IS based on my experience and reality, I concluded that the God I worshipped would not work in such a way through someone. As for political politics, sure.  But I don't trust them for my salvations, give them thousands of hours of my time or donate my money to them to the degree I do for the Church.  And I do change what I do based on info. Last year I supported The Lincoln Project.  But based on new knowledge I no longer do.

Our lives and experience influence all of what you list above. So sure our realty is developed based on experiences.  

I am here because I am still seeking.

 

 

[Risingtide]

On 4/2/2021 at 10:47 PM, Bernard Gui said:

 

What do you think a righteous plural marriage system, one that was pleasing to God if he commanded it to raise seed to himself, would look like?

That would take some time to work out. I'll give you some of what I've got.

The practice would respect existing marriages. This would prohibit polyandry.

It would limit the amount of sealings. I think three would be the very maximum. Even then it would cheat the children of the time with fathers and the financial resources that children of monogamous families are blessed with. 

There would be clearly written and enforced rules of behavior regarding the practice, and these laws would be available for all to read.

Scripture wouldn't be published to obfuscate polygamious doctrine.

Before a second wife would be taken into the marriage the first wife would wish for the addition of another wife. 

I don't believe the LDS practice of polygamy aided in the goal of raising righteous seed. I believe the opposite is more likely. I think the Church would have attracted more righteous persons or persons seeking a righteous life  into the faith without polygamy, and those children would have been raised in better circumstances. 

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Risingtide
Edition of adding consent of first wife.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Risingtide said:

That would take some time to work out. I'll give you some of what I've got.

The practice would respect existing marriages. This would prohibit polyandry.

It would limit the amount of sealings. I think three would be the very maximum. Even then it would cheat the children of the time with fathers and the financial resources that children of monogamous families are blessed with. 

There would be clearly written and enforced rules of behavior regarding the practice, and these laws would be available for all to read.

Scripture wouldn't be published to obfuscate polygamious doctrine.

I don't believe the LDS practice of polygamy aided in the goal of raising righteous seed. I believe the opposite is more likely. I think the Church would have attracted more righteous persons or persons seeking a righteous life  into the faith without polygamy, and those children would have been raised in better circumstances. 

 

And with what authority are these pronouncements endowed? 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Risingtide said:

The practice would respect existing marriages. This would prohibit polyandry.

I agree with respecting existing marriages but at the same time we should acknowledge that all marriages are not created equal in God's eyes.  A civil ceremony carries little authority or validity, compared to a Priesthood sealing.

One of the reasons polyandry seems to have occurred in the early Church is members began to see their previous marriage as having no authority so they felt at liberty to contract a new one.

 

[Risingtide]

9 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

And with what authority are these pronouncements endowed? 

No authority. I just answered the question. That's what we do here, right?

[Risingtide]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with respecting existing marriages but at the same time we should acknowledge that all marriages are not created equal in God's eyes.  A civil ceremony carries little authority or validity, compared to a Priesthood sealing.

One of the reasons polyandry seems to have occurred in the early Church is members began to see their previous marriage as having no authority so they felt at liberty to contract a new one.

 

Can you not see how that would anger those outside the faith? What if that was applied to your marriage?  Your wife is courted by someone of a different faith that doesn't accept the validity of your sealing/marriage. If she is persuaded and leaves your home to be another's wife. Would you be upset?

[OGHoosier]

24 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

No authority. I just answered the question. That's what we do here, right?

Food for thought. If they truly have no authority behind them, why do you hold them as authoritative? 

[Risingtide]

11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Food for thought. If they truly have no authority behind them, why do you hold them as authoritative? 

I was asked my opinion. I've given it. Do I have the authority to have my own opinion? I think so.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Risingtide
punctuation

[OGHoosier]

1 minute ago, Risingtide said:

I was asked my opinion. I've given it. Do I have the authority to have my own opinion? I think so.

Then you do not truly hold these opinions on no authority. You hold them on your own authority, no? 

[Risingtide]

3 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Then you do not truly hold these opinions on no authority. You hold them on your own authority, no? 

This authority of personal opinion is binding on no one but myself.

In your belief system do people have authority of personal conscience?

[OGHoosier]

32 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

This authority of personal opinion is binding on no one but myself.

In your belief system do people have authority of personal conscience?

What is the authority of personal conscience but the authority of personal preference, if not reinforced by some external authority? 

Is the authority of personal preference absolute? 

If not, then are we truly justified in relying on our personal consciences to pass judgement upon others? 

I'll lighten up on the Socratic dialectic and cut to the point. 

"The authority of personal opinion is binding on no one but myself" is a diversion, not an answer. Do you believe that your personal preferences are keyed to something actually true? If not, is somebody who violates them actually doing anything wrong? No. In the absence of any form of external reinforcement, internal ethical systems cannot be used to describe or qualify the actions of other people, except as references to one's own preferences. Which indicates that moral outrage is not based on any variety of truth, but merely of preference. There is no ontological difference, at that point, between my casual dislike of quiche and moral revulsion; the difference is only in the intensity of the feeling. "That person is doing something wrong" is reduced to "I really don't like what that person is doing." Shall I declare mankind a moral monster for making French egg tarts?

There have been a lot of societies throughout history that have believed moral codes which are roundly condemned as horrid by others. Aztec sacrifice was abhorred by the conquistadors. We Westerners are mortified by the treatment of women in the Middle East. The list is lengthy and the anthropologists continue to add more. Humans tend to have general ethical impulses that are common to all of us; revulsion to murder, the protection of children, etc., but these impulses are not a moral code in and of themselves, they are only impulses. The creation of moral codes, moral rules, linguistic descriptions of what is right and wrong and what we can and cannot do, require us to elaborate upon these impulses and build a framework upon them which is manifestly culture-dependent. And we are all educated in our cultures and derive the values that prop up our personal consciences from those cultures. So, frankly, in my belief system the authority of personal conscience has a pretty big asterisk. We do not defer to the personal conscience of the psychopath, which means that the authority of personal conscience to declare how things "ought to be" is already determined to be less than absolute. And "normal" personal consciences in any particular culture tend to reflect the values of that culture, which implies that our personal consciences are more reflective of what we absorb then declarative of what is actually right or wrong in an objective sense. My conclusion is that, inasmuch as we are part of a culture we might as well follow the values of that culture, but none of those values are sufficiently absolute to outrank God, and in any case we mortals are not in any position to translate those culturally-contingent values into declarations on what God "should" or "can" do. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Risingtide said:

Can you not see how that would anger those outside the faith? What if that was applied to your marriage?  Your wife is courted by someone of a different faith that doesn't accept the validity of your sealing/marriage. If she is persuaded and leaves your home to be another's wife. Would you be upset?

Of course.  It would be extremely upsetting.  Absolutely so.

That doesn't mean the doctrine is false.  There are many of God's words that have upset millions since the beginning of recorded history.

[Risingtide]

14 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

So, frankly, in my belief system the authority of personal conscience has a pretty big asterisk. We do not defer to the personal conscience of the psychopath, which means that the authority of personal conscience to declare how things "ought to be" is already determined to be less than absolute. And "normal" personal consciences in any particular culture tend to reflect the values of that culture, which implies that our personal consciences are more reflective of what we absorb then declarative of what is actually right or wrong in an objective sense. My conclusion is that, inasmuch as we are part of a culture we might as well follow the values of that culture, but none of those values are sufficiently absolute to outrank God, and in any case we mortals are not in any position to translate those culturally-contingent values into declarations on what God "should" or "can" do. 

You've given me a lot to unpack, but I'll try to address some of it.  I agree, it's not wise to defer to the personal conscience of psychopaths. It's not always wise to defer to the healthy in mind. There are millions of God fearing persons with varying beliefs. Beliefs that are in conflict with one another. My guess is that most of those persons believe they are following the ultimate authority. I am not bound by the belief of others. They have the right to follow their conscience, as I do mine. I don't believe that is a dodge. 

I agree, our conscience is largely formed by the culture around us along with our experience and education, with some biology in the mix. So we develop a conscience from these factors. This doesn't guarantee we arrive at the true paradigm. We get along as best we can, hopefully with some level of humility and acceptance of differences. 

I wish you a happy Easter.