Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Leaked U.K. Attendance Numbers Show Mass Defections and Declining Attendance Prior to Pandemic


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are a poor, and highly unprofessional psychotherapist.

It's kind of shocking, frankly that anyone would put out such a conclusion.

I based my conclusions on the philosophy of William James and the idea that all religions have all "truth" and all are valid in similar ways. Otherwise they would have no followers 

There was nothing to be emotional about.

The Catholic paradigm didn't work for me. I got a new one.

Religion is like a psychological theory which one believes fo a while until another paradigm works better for you.

This is a very strange board, to not understand the Rorty quote below instantly. Its clarity pierced my soul, and fits perfectly within "getting your own testimony", reading the best books, and personal revelation.

Are there any LDS people here at all? Are you all Fundamentalists?

 

@SeekingUnderstanding

I apologize for my mood here.  Tough day.  I see your point though.  I am at a point in my evolution where I am questioning whether or not I belong on this board at all, and so I am feeling emotional.   I mean after putting so much time and effort into it, it's a hard decision.  ;);)   Besides I am addicted- I need a 12 step program to get out.  

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

People follow all sorts of things that are not true. Nor are all religions valid.

What you are not getting is that they ARE valid- for them.  I think you will never see that.

People take on behaviors because the behavior fulfills some need they have.   So what is your need to put down the church, without a reasonable theory of truth behind your assertions?

How does your present "religion" of anti-religion help you deal with the world?

I am sorry you are going through this.   I guess this fits perfectly with the thread though, right now...

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What you are not getting is that they ARE valid- for them.  I think you will never see that.

I understand your point. And anyone can have anything be valid for them, good or bad. I can believe in fairies, elves and Hobbits and that they are real if I feel good about it and it is valid for me. The book The Lord of the Rings certainly has messages that resonate with me.

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

People take on behaviors because the behavior fulfills some need they have. 

Ok

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 

So what is your need to put down the church, without a reasonable theory of truth behind your assertions?

I have no need to put down the church. I am simply critical of some of the things it claims and does.  Why does that seem to bother you?  What was your need to leave Catholicism? 

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How does your present "religion" of anti-religion help you deal with the world?

I think that might be a good topic for another thread. But one does not need religion to deal with the world and in many ways religion harms the way people deal with the world.

 

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am sorry you are going through this.   I guess this fits perfectly with the thread though, right now...

Why make it personal? Why are you sorry for me. I am quite happy and much happier without what I view as false beliefs. Maybe you should feel sorry for yourself and other believers?

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

@SeekingUnderstanding

I apologize for my mood here.  Tough day.  I see your point though.  I am at a point in my evolution where I am questioning whether or not I belong on this board at all, and so I am feeling emotional.   I mean after putting so much time and effort into it, it's a hard decision.  ;);)   Besides I am addicted- I need a 12 step program to get out.  

 

Nah stick around. Believe it or not you do cause me to think about things and try different approaches. I am not a totally lost heathen.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I apologize for my mood here.  Tough day.  I see your point though.  I am at a point in my evolution where I am questioning whether or not I belong on this board at all, and so I am feeling emotional.   I mean after putting so much time and effort into it, it's a hard decision.  ;);)   Besides I am addicted- I need a 12 step program to get out.  

I'd very much prefer that you didn't go. But if in the end you choose to do so, you ought to go knowing that you definitely helped me. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I am in agreement. The nature of God's knowledge and the nature of our knowledge seem obviously different, which implies that our knowledge is necessarily of an imperfect nature. This occurs on any variety of monotheism, it seems.

Interestingly, my coming around to Pragmatism was not brought about by arguments. Your arguments, and those of others, helped, but my experience was that my axiomatic belief in the "hard truth" of rational conclusions was pretty well dug in. I blame the culture for that. Argument couldn't really dislodge it. The only thing that could was experience - I read philosophical and political literature and I saw so much disagreement everywhere. I saw people disagreeing over the meaning of the same exact words, on topics with the most profound implications. I reflected on the fact that all of them thought that they were right, or at least acted as though the beliefs they held were right, and I really couldn't fault them for it. And yet other people, just as qualified, disagreed. To me, the only way to resolve this was to accept theoretical humility but, practically speaking, act as if our controversial beliefs were true. That means jettisoning the dogma of the truthfinding reliability of "pure reason", but it does open up a view of the world which, I think, better fits the data. Argument couldn't do it for me, only experience could. It seems that the gospel tells me to accept both of these conclusions - experience is a more powerful guide than mere argument, and at the end of the day we have to regard our beliefs as practical instruments rather than indubitable nuggets of The Truth. I find this convergence of conclusions to be revealing. 

Thanks again!

And yet what is totally ironic is that your experience and understanding that there is "no truth" in the sense people seek leads one to a truth that sets one free!

People look at the Rorty quote- and me for posting it, I guess, as atheists who deny God by merely questioning the nature of truth, while seeing the truth of men as confused is the key to moving on to the greater truth of "relativism"

"Truth of relativism? are you nuts?  Relativists do not believe in truth!!"

What they are not understanding is that in the "truth business" (philosophy) - where one examines truth for a living- sort of- ;) the experiences of those individuals lead to the idea that there is no truth but, as you say, experience.  The idea of truth itself leads one to the ineffable- that it is a word and nothing more- a word we know how to use with children and in court and is a useful word, but it leads to an abstract world which does not exist.  But that itself is the biggest truth!!

It is by denying the truth of men that one becomes open to direct experience - the truth of God becomes manifest.

The suddenly the denial of creeds and the statements of Joseph that "all churches are abominations" and admonitions to "get your own testimony" become the KEY to seeing a greater truth- that "truth" is an invention of man, which we need to rise above.   It is the natural man speaking, not God.

How well the idea of "natural man" fits with "naturalism"!  "All that exists is produced naturally, nothing is supernatural"- that statement itself proves its own irony!  It is a matter of definitions- it DEFINES "all that happens" as a product of nature- INCLUDING - now by definition- the "supernatural".  But what a useless statement that becomes when one sees that what is seen as "supernatural" in one phase of knowledge- hearing voices out of the air and seeing things that are not here - become perfectly "natural" when one understands those phenomena as simply a higher technology!   A television shows us things that are not here, and allows us to hear the voice of one not here as well.

So in one sense "naturalism" is true by definition and therefore irrelevant- a meaningless assertion of the totally obvious.   It is an assertion of the natural man to see the world as "natural"- of course it is- in one sense, but in another it need not be!

And so we see the ultimate uselessness of trying to define these ideas- the ineffable is simply... ineffable!

So understanding that the philosophies of men lead nowhere also means that the concept of "truth" itself leads nowhere.   What takes its place?  Experience- and that includes "religious experience!"

Direct religious experience is the only way to rise above the philosophies of men!!

And so - Book of Mormon History= philosophies of men.  Is the Book of Abraham a true "translation"? = philosophies of men  Was Joseph a philanderer? = philosophies of men.

So what counts then as "truth"?

Direct experience that the Lord wants you on this path regardless of the silly philosophies and sophistries of men.

But one must EXPERIENCE the futillity of the philosophies of men to see it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't understand why asking a temple president about a temple ordinance is rude.

Perhaps it would have been rude if you asked them specifically if they had received the 2A and about their experience but asking about an ordinance (even a semi-secret one) seems like fair ground for questions.

IF the Temple presidents really looked at you quizzically and stated they didn't know anything about the 2A then they are either woefully unaware or a temple ordinance for which they hold keys, OR they are being dishonest

Oh my gosh.

Now the second or third person.

READ THE QUOTE, what I actually quoted them saying, it is totally the truth!

"I can't say that I know much about that" 

No, he CAN'T SAY that he knows much about it. He is prohibited from saying what he DOES know, so yes he literally cannot say he knows much about it

Reading is essential 

How is that dishonest??

Most people in the church don't even know the ordinance exists.

How much would you say you KNOW about the endowment?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"I can't say that I know much about that" 

Just to clarify for those who are accusing the Temple Presidents of lying, and just in case you still don't get it, the quote above could be restated as, "I know much about that, I just can't say it"

Edited by T-Shirt
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Just to clarify for those who are accusing the Temple Presidents of lying, the quote above could be restated as, "I know much about that, I just can't say it"

Exactly!!!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I'd very much prefer that you didn't go. But if in the end you choose to do so, you ought to go knowing that you definitely helped me. 

Thanks. That's a good reason to stay!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How does your present "religion" of anti-religion help you deal with the world?

I am sorry you are going through this.   I guess this fits perfectly with the thread though, right now...

…what purpose does this serve?

Maybe I misread/misunderstood what you’re saying but it comes off pretty passive aggressive but maybe I’m just misinterpretating.

😶

Edited by Canadiandude
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.

Now the second or third person.

READ THE QUOTE, what I actually quoted them saying, it is totally the truth!

"I can't say that I know much about that" 

No, he CAN'T SAY that he knows much about it. He is prohibited from saying what he DOES know, so yes he literally cannot say he knows much about it

Reading is essential 

How is that dishonest??

Most people in the church don't even know the ordinance exists.

How much would you say you KNOW about the endowment?

Touchy.

So you're putting emphasis on the "I can't say" portion of the comment as opposed to what would seem to be a statement purposefully designed to send the message that he doesn't "know much about" that.

Yes, reading is essential but no need to be a jerk about it ;) especially when the statement is designed to send the message that was received by many of us. Were these mission presidents attorneys or politicians in a former life?

Lets be honest. The statement was designed to deflect the question and imply that he didn't know about the 2A.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Touchy.

So you're putting emphasis on the "I can't say" portion of the comment as opposed to what would seem to be a statement purposefully designed to send the message that he doesn't "know much about" that.

Yes, reading is essential but no need to be a jerk about it ;) especially when the statement is designed to send the message that was received by many of us. Were these mission presidents attorneys or politicians in a former life?

Lets be honest. The statement was designed to deflect the question and imply that he didn't know about the 2A.

No, it was, I think a trained wording memorized by all of them,for this exact question so a not to be rude.

My point was to say that several people replied with the same wording.

But who would ask the same question to multiple people to see how it was handled?

Me,of course.

And that is why I now see that as a rude reason  to ask it in the first place.

I was using their training as an experiment, objectivizing their sincerity and playing "gotcha".

I already knew the answer and did not expect anything else

In a sense I was mocking them

Now defend me by telling me how bad the church is for avoiding questions

It's a merry go round, this silly apologetics game

But I really don't like video games

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, it was, I think a trained wording memorized by all of them,for this exact question so a not to be rude.

My point was to say that several people replied with the same wording.

But who would ask the same question to multiple people to see how it was handled?

Me,of course.

And that is why I now see that as a rude reason  to ask it in the first place.

I was using their training as an experiment, objectivizing their sincerity and playing "gotcha".

I already knew the answer and did not expect anything else

In a sense I was mocking them

Now defend me by telling me how bad the church is for avoiding questions

It's a merry go round, this silly apologetics game

But I really don't like video games

 

I think it is rude to make the 2a only available to the connected members. There are many members who are more qualified based on actual righteousness instead of by virtue of their status in the church. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I think it is rude to make the 2a only available to the connected members. There are many members who are more qualified based on actual righteousness instead of by virtue of their status in the church. 

Thank you for your expert opinion on how the Lord wants the 2A to be administered.

You better give President Nelson a call immediately and let him know he is in error 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I think it is rude to make the 2a only available to the connected members. There are many members who are more qualified based on actual righteousness instead of by virtue of their status in the church. 

And you're a better judge in Israel than President Nelson?

Interesting.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Teancum said:

Fair enough. But the church does emphasize feelings as a primary means of receiving a testimony.

Not my experience. Heck, the Preach my Gospel manual specifically warns against it.

Quote

President Howard W. Hunter offered this counsel: “Let me offer a word of caution. … I think if we are not careful … , we may begin to try to counterfeit the true influence of the Spirit of the Lord by unworthy and manipulative means. I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself” (The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter [1997], 184). The Spirit of the Lord always edifies.

The table shortly above that quote (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/how-do-i-recognize-and-understand-the-spirit?lang=eng) also doesn't emphasize feelings.

Whatever narrative you feel is justified as being correct because of your past experiences should be replaced with a more accurate one. No need to set up a straw man to beat the Church about with.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Not my experience. Heck, the Preach my Gospel manual specifically warns against it.

The table shortly above that quote (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/how-do-i-recognize-and-understand-the-spirit?lang=eng) also doesn't emphasize feelings.

Whatever narrative you feel is justified as being correct because of your past experiences should be replaced with a more accurate one. No need to set up a straw man to beat the Church about with.

I pointed this out earlier as well.

Set theory: there are subsets within categories.

Because an otter is an animal, that doesn't mean that all animals are otters

Because revelations come as emotions that doesn't mean that all emotions are revelations 

Link to comment
On 9/3/2021 at 9:42 AM, mfbukowski said:

I don't get it

Every post you make makes up negative arguments against the church, and now this "breaks your heart?"

All the posts he makes about negative arguments against the Church of Jesus Christ "break[  his] heart."  In my opinion (though others' mileage may vary), given his disaffection from the Church of Jesus Christ, his alleged "broken heartedness" is just a part of his shtick, and his [repeated] "broken heartedness" is about as genuine as the $3 bill in my wallet.  As I say, others' mileage may vary.  Caveat lector.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
On 9/10/2021 at 10:42 AM, mfbukowski said:

@SeekingUnderstanding

I apologize for my mood here.  Tough day.  I see your point though.  I am at a point in my evolution where I am questioning whether or not I belong on this board at all, and so I am feeling emotional.   I mean after putting so much time and effort into it, it's a hard decision.  ;);)   Besides I am addicted- I need a 12 step program to get out.  

 

Mark...I would truly be displeased to see you go. This is just personal. It would make things easier for me around here with you out of the way! Virtually everything I write and much of what I don't write is with you in mind.

I want to go to church with you.

Your philosophical orthodoxy, in my opinion, is too rigid because it does not seem to allow for a transcendent God to find a way to express His goodness to man, or for man to express to Him, his desire for the eternal and transcendent God. This desire is in the bosom of man. Nothing else can perfectly satisfy. As Augustine says, "Our hearts are restless..." Informed Catholics should believe that Somebody put this desire in us not out of malice to make us miserable, but because it is attainable. When you say the transcendent God cannot or will not hear our prayers, it seems to me that you place unreasonable limits on what the transcendent God wishes for us, and can do for us.

No creature in a good creation can desire what is unattainable. I have really liked (loved, I should confess) one of our cats over the years. But the most she seemed to want was to stretch her paws (hands) out on my chest while I was in the recliner. Her wishes were attainable. And here is the thing in Catholicism. We believe that those who are sons of God, not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, are indeed gods, or perhaps I should make that "gods in the making", partaking of His transcendent nature. And thus to those who are becoming gods, the transcendent God becomes immanent and intimate, God with us, revealing to us His heart through His Son and by His Spirit. Our most sublime desires are possible.  

Be nice to me now. 

God bless. 

Rory

Link to comment

No empty content? Can't just delete a regretted remark that has escaped notice?  This does just that.

 

 

 

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
On 9/10/2021 at 9:42 AM, mfbukowski said:

@SeekingUnderstanding

I apologize for my mood here.  Tough day.  I see your point though.  I am at a point in my evolution where I am questioning whether or not I belong on this board at all, and so I am feeling emotional.   I mean after putting so much time and effort into it, it's a hard decision.  ;);)   Besides I am addicted- I need a 12 step program to get out.  

 

Don't either of you go, please??

Link to comment
On 9/10/2021 at 1:59 PM, mfbukowski said:

No, it was, I think a trained wording memorized by all of them,for this exact question so a not to be rude.

My point was to say that several people replied with the same wording.

But who would ask the same question to multiple people to see how it was handled?

Me,of course.

And that is why I now see that as a rude reason  to ask it in the first place.

I was using their training as an experiment, objectivizing their sincerity and playing "gotcha".

I already knew the answer and did not expect anything else

In a sense I was mocking them

Now defend me by telling me how bad the church is for avoiding questions

It's a merry go round, this silly apologetics game

But I really don't like video games

 

I think you are being too hard on yourself by stating you were mocking them. It sounds like an interesting experiment that yielded an interesting yet expected result.

Your conclusion seems to be that Temple Presidents are coached on how to avoid certain questions by answering in a way that is designed to mislead the person asking. I guess it is up to each of us to decide whether or not we find that acceptable.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...