The Symbol IS / IS NOT The Thing

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Before Helen Keller met Anne Sullivan, should she taste, touch, or smell?

I presume you meant "could" she taste touch or smell?

Well let's see.  ,,,,,,,   this is highly complex.   The usual description of these things conclude that there are 5 human senses, though in many ways there are many others.

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/15/archives/we-have-more-than-five-senses-most-people-take-the-faculties-of.html#:~:text=faculties-of.html-,We Have More Than Five Senses%3B Most people take the,have abilities we never suspected.&text=HUMAN beings tend to take,senses pretty much for granted.

But to make it simple for us, in this very simple question, let's use the classic 5 senses, sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing .

In the usual paradigm of how we speak about the abilities of Hellen Keller, it is said that lacked seeing and hearing, and iirc, Anne Sullivan did not miraculously heal her, so I am not sure what she has to do with anything

Of course I am not sure what this question has to do with anything either.

But let me ask you one also.

What color is a "red" sweater in the moon light?  

[Calm]

Iirc, Helen has originally been able to hear and see and had memories of and therefore a concept of spoken language and sight and sound, which allowed her to make a connection to finger spelling.  She lost her sight and hearing at 19 months, due to illness. 
 

Just FYI….

Edited September 17, 2021 by Calm

[Ipod Touch]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In the usual paradigm of how we speak about the abilities of Hellen Keller, it is said that lacked seeing and hearing, and iirc, Anne Sullivan did not miraculously heal her, so I am not sure what she has to do with anything

Of course I am not sure what this question has to do with anything either.

You didn't answer the question.

Before Helen Keller met Anne Sullivan, could she taste, touch, and smell?

[Navidad]

On 9/15/2021 at 1:46 PM, JLHPROF said:

 

Because God won't consider you completely clean spiritually if you don't enter the waters of Baptism.
The act of being immersed in the baptismal waters (assuming you have repented and accepted your Savior) literally makes you clean before God.

Do you believe you can be in clean through entrance into the covenant with Christ without being washed in authorized baptismal waters?
 

I think we are declared clean by the shed blood of the sacrificial lamb - an OT archetype (or type - to throw in another term) of Christ - the ultimate sacrifice. It is the same when we claim to be righteous - we are declared righteous - we become, here on earth the literal symbol or archetype of what we will be in heaven. Baptism is a symbol or type of death burial and resurrection. I have never heard of anyone literally dying in a baptism pool, font, river, or swimming pool.  I would also add the concept of "worthy" to this. My LDS friends put great emphasis on "being worthy." I would suggest we never in this life will "be worthy." Via the shed blood of Christ we are declared worthy, we never actually become worthy of redemption, the indwelling of the Spirit, eternal life, etc. We are declared worthy, while still unworthy, because the worthiness with which we are declared is that of Christ. There is no other anyone who has ever been human who is worthy, except for Christ - that is why He is the unigenito - the only-begotten, the first born - all of which apply to his uniqueness among humans. So no, neither baptism, repentance, being born again, or any other act of the human will or agency makes us worthy. Somewhere in all of that we are declared worthy. We only actually become worthy when resurrected and declared good and faithful by  Christ, at that point not only the redemptor, counsel for the accused, and judge as well.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I would also add the concept of "worthy" to this. My LDS friends put great emphasis on "being worthy." I would suggest we never in this life will "be worthy." Via the shed blood of Christ we are declared worthy, we never actually become worthy of redemption, the indwelling of the Spirit, eternal life, etc. We are declared worthy, while still unworthy, because the worthiness with which we are declared is that of Christ.

I think when we speak of "being worthy" we're meaning that their is a minimum standard of "worthiness" that the Lord expects of those who would enter into covenants with Him.

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think when we speak of "being worthy" we're meaning that their is a minimum standard of "worthiness" that the Lord expects of those who would enter into covenants with Him.

And that is where the LDS faith differs with many other denominations.

In many other Christian denominations "worthy" and "worthiness" are often used in referencing God, not individuals. We are NOT worthy, but God is, therefore we can trust God.

 

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And that is where the LDS faith differs with many other denominations.

In many other Christian denominations "worthy" and "worthiness" are often used in referencing God, not individuals. We are NOT worthy, but God is, therefore we can trust God.

 

If we attaching different meanings to the same words then I could see how that could lead to confusion.

[latterdaytemplar]

I think that I missed the other thread referenced by the OP, so I apologize if my reply here does not address the conversation.

Symbols are finite and ambiguous; there is no one symbol that, in and of itself, is limited to a sole group or interpretation.

Within the Gospel, symbols are used as physical expressions convey eternal principles and to represent covenants made.

[HappyJackWagon]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If we attaching different meanings to the same words then I could see how that could lead to confusion.

Not a different meaning, really. But rather a difference in application. It's the "who" not the "what".

 

11 minutes ago, latterdaytemplar said:

I think that I missed the other thread referenced by the OP, so I apologize if my reply here does not address the conversation.

Symbols are finite and ambiguous; there is no one symbol that, in and of itself, is limited to a sole group or interpretation.

Within the Gospel, symbols are used as physical expressions convey eternal principles and to represent covenants made.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

You didn't answer the question.

Before Helen Keller met Anne Sullivan, could she taste, touch, and smell?

I didn't answer the question because it is unanswerable, and relies on linguistic confusion, of which you seem to be a master.

It is exactly like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a sound"?   

Well, does it?

What you are missing - for the purposes of this discussion- is this has nothing to do with whether or not a symbol is "reality".

Obviously if you have some fixation on Helen Keller, and want to use her life as an example, clearly what she demonstrates is that ONE LEARNS that symbols "reperesent" what we refer to as "reality"

She obviously knew what "water" was- she washed, drank water etc.   She had experienced water,- as far, arguably  knew what it was and how to use it, but did not have the CONCEPT of existence of symbols.  She had all the senses considered "normal" except hearing and sight, so your question is more a medical one than one having to do with symbols and reality.  

Yes her experience of the world was quite different than those born with those abilities, just as bats would think us handicapped because we cannot echolocate bugs and fly to catch them.   Read this for a good background on these issues- this is the wiki version.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

So if anything Helen Keller's story teaches that symbols are learned "representations" of experiences.

And the reason for the quotes around the word, is that symbols do not actually RE-present- as to re-create the experience - of water.   One does not feel a squirt of water on one's face when one utters the word "water"- therefore it does not "re-create" the experience, though we do say it "re-presents". 

Also note I said that what is allegedly "re-presented" is the EXPERIENCE of water, not the "reality" of water, because of course we cannot know the "reality" of water.

Is water "really" H2O? Do the words "dihydrogen monoxide"   re-create the experience of putting your feet into an ocean wave?

 

[Kevin Christensen]

I read Hiyakawa's Language in Thought and Action for fun back when I was at San Jose State.  It made an impact on my thinking.  And later, Kuhn, and still later, I ran across Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms. Betty Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, which has implications beyond art.  Symbols are right brain language.  Logic is left brain.  We need both, thinking and feeling, working to suppliment and compliment one another.  And as a consequence, I was very impressed with a passage in the Gospel of Philip.

Quote

Truth did not come into the world naked but in symbols and images. The world cannot receive truth in any other way. There is rebirth and an image of rebirth, and it is by means of this image that one must be reborn. What image is this? It is resurrection. Image must arise through image. By means of this image the bridal chamber and the image must approach the truth. This is restoration.

Those who receive the name of the father, son, and holy spirit and have accepted them must do this. If someone does not accept them, the name will also be taken from that person. A person receives them in the chrism with the oil of the power of the cross. The apostles called this power the right and the left. This person is no longer a Christian but is Christ.

How much of our learning involves figuring out the meanings of sounds, of letters, of mathematical symbols, of expressions, body language, smells, social cues, rituals, etc?  

And this:

Quote

The mysteries of truth are made known in symbols and images. The bedchamber is hidden, and it is the holy of the holy. At first the curtain concealed how God manages creation, but when the curtain is torn and what is inside appears, this building will be left deserted, or rather will be destroyed. And the whole godhead will flee from here but not into the holy of holies, for it cannot mingle with pure [light] and [perfect] fullness. Instead it will remain under the wings of the cross [and under] its arms. This ark will be salvation [for people] when floodwaters [85] surge over them.

Whoever belongs to the priestly order can go inside the curtain along with the high priest. For this reason the curtain was not torn only at the top, for then only the upper realm would have been opened. It was not torn only at the bottom, for then it would have revealed only the lower realm. No, it was torn from top to bottom. The upper realm was opened for us in the lower realm, that we might enter the hidden realm of truth. This is what is truly worthy and mighty, and we shall enter through symbols that are weak and insignificant. They are weak compared to perfect glory. There is glory that surpasses glory, there is power that surpasses power. Perfect things have opened to us, and hidden things of truth. The holy of holies was revealed, and the bedchamber invited us in.

From another translation of Philip

Quote

Yet we shall enter therein by means of despised symbols and weaknesses. They are indeed humble by comparison with the perfect glory. There is a glory that surpasses glory, * there is a power which surpasses power.

When Laman and Lemuel ask Nephi whether the images in Lehi's vision were temporal or spiritual, the answer was "both."  And we are told in the LDS scriptures  "all things which have been given of God are the typifying of Christ", and that he "gives us a pattern in all things".    In An Egyptian Endowment, Nibley talked about how the best, most meaningful, religious symbols actually do the things they symbolize.  They are not "mere" symbols, but essential tools for comprehension. 

It is essential to think about where we get our controlling metaphors and how they both guide and limit and expand our perceptions.  That is, I think, one of the important aspects of checking our own eye for beams, and considering whether our we ought to try new wine bottles for new wine.  But there is no question about getting rid of metaphor and symbol.  As though strict literism will do.  Any attempt to do without fails.  

From my Light and Perspective essay

Quote

"Paradigms provide scientists not only with a map but with some of the directions essential for map-making. In learning a paradigm the scientist acquires theory, methods, and standards together, usually in an inextricable mixture. Therefore, when paradigms change, there are usually significant shifts in the criteria for determining the legitimacy both of problems and of proposed solutions."99

In politics, this is “controlling the narrative.” It turns out to be akin, as Barker explains, to one of the meanings of the word mašal, translated as parable:

"The Hebrew lexicon lists three apparently distinct meanings for this word: to rule or have dominion; to be like, or cause to be like; and to speak in parables or poetry —the two latter clearly aspects of the same meaning. But in fact all three are [Page 62]the same: the one who “rules” in this sense is the one who determines how and what things are, and does this by making or maintaining the correspondences."100

Joseph Campbell had explained that one of the functions of a mythology is “supporting and validating a certain social order.”101 The exemplary stories told by a community model the ways things ought to be done, the acceptable thoughts and questions, the basis for addressing and resolving conflicts; and for exploring unanswered questions, and defining what we can ask, and what we should not ask.

"The scientist, by virtue of an accepted paradigm, knew what a datum was, what instruments might be used to retrieve it, and what concepts were relevant to its interpretation."102

So the people and work and stories and exemplary texts or standard textbooks provide the models that define a community’s methods and social boundaries. While some may be compatible or have significant overlap or applicability within different communities, others may define very different communities.

"Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life. … When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defense."

At the right moment, a parable can open a person's eyes.  As Samuel did in telling a parable of the violent theft of a lamb, to King David, and so opened David's eyes to a sense of his own guilt in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba.  A paradigm can blind a person, as Othello's paradigm and interpretation of evidence demonstrates.  He was not objectively following the facts to the murder of Desdemona, but following a logic that was saddled to his own fears and passions.  A metaphor can demonstrate just how blind a person is, as when the Captain Moroni metaphor was once applied to a politician who much more closely resembles King Noah.  Every metaphor has both positive and negative analogies.  Every metaphor or parable is focused on likeness and pattern, and therefore, limited by definition.   Every metaphor, parable and symbol offers infinite comparisons, and is also, unlimited in important ways.  (Ian Barbour is good on that.)

So maps are not the territory, symbols are not the things symbolized, but they are essentials towards gaining understanding.  As Alma's parable in his chapter 32 demonstrates. Symbols point beyond themselves to something real.  And the way to measure just how real, how well any particular symbol guides us to the territory it purports to map, is spelled out by Alma 32 and Thomas Kuhn.  Testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited September 18, 2021 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I read Hiyakawa's Language in Thought and Action for fun back when I was at San Jose State.  It made and impact on my thinking.  And later, Kuhn, and still later, I ran across Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms. Betty Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, which has implications beyond art.  Symbols are right brain language.  Logic is left brain.  We both, thinking and feeling, working to suppliment and compliment one another.  And as a consequence, was very impressed with a passage in the Gospel of Philip.

How much of our learning involves figuring out the meanings of sounds, of letters, of mathematical symbols, of expressions, body language, smells, social cues, rituals, etc?  

And this:

From another translation of Philip

When Laman and Lemuel ask Nephi whether the images in Lehi's vision were temporal or spiritual, the answer was "both."  And we are told in the LDS scriptures  "all things which have been given of God are the typifying of Christ", and that he "gives us a pattern in all things".    In An Egyptian Endowment, Nibley talked about how the best, most meaningful, religious symbols actually do the things they symbolize.  They are not "mere" symbols, but essential tools for comprehension. 

It is essential to think about where we get our controlling metaphors and how they both guide and limit and expand our perceptions.  That is, I think, one of the important aspects of checking our own eye for beams, and considering whether our we ought to try new wine bottles for new wine.  But there is no question about getting rid of metaphor and symbol.  As though strict literism will do.  Any attempt to do without fails.  

From my Light and Perspective essay

At the right moment, a parable can open a person's eyes.  As Samuel did in telling a parable of the violent theft of a lamb, to King David, and so opened David's eyes to a sense of his own guilt in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba.  A paradigm can blind a person, as Othello's paradigm and interpretation of evidence demonstrates.  He was not objectively following the facts to the murder of Desdemona, but following a logic that was saddled to his own fears and passions.  A metaphor can demonstrate just how blind a person is, as when the Captain Moroni metaphor was once applied to a politician who much more closely resembles King Noah.  Every metaphor has both positive and negative analogies.  Every metaphor or parable is focused on likeness and pattern, and therefore, limited by definition.   Every metaphor, parable and symbol offers infinite comparisons, and is also, unlimited in important ways.  (Ian Barbour is good on that.)

So maps are not the territory, symbols are not the things symbolized, but they are essentials towards gaining understanding.  As Alma's parable in his chapter 32 demonstrates. Symbols point beyond themselves to something real.  And the way to measure just how real, how well any particular symbol guides us to the territory it puports to map, is spelled out by Alma 32 and Thomas Kuhn.  Testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Oh my, thank you thank you thank you!

This is absolutely fabulous.    I had forgotten the map metaphor, and how well it works, but that is simply one drop in this waterfall of wisdom that can become living water.

Edited September 17, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I read Hiyakawa's Language in Thought and Action for fun back when I was at San Jose State.  It made an impact on my thinking.  And later, Kuhn, and still later, I ran across Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms. Betty Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, which has implications beyond art.  Symbols are right brain language.  Logic is left brain.  We need both, thinking and feeling, working to suppliment and compliment one another.  And as a consequence, I was very impressed with a passage in the Gospel of Philip.

How much of our learning involves figuring out the meanings of sounds, of letters, of mathematical symbols, of expressions, body language, smells, social cues, rituals, etc?  

And this:

From another translation of Philip

When Laman and Lemuel ask Nephi whether the images in Lehi's vision were temporal or spiritual, the answer was "both."  And we are told in the LDS scriptures  "all things which have been given of God are the typifying of Christ", and that he "gives us a pattern in all things".    In An Egyptian Endowment, Nibley talked about how the best, most meaningful, religious symbols actually do the things they symbolize.  They are not "mere" symbols, but essential tools for comprehension. 

It is essential to think about where we get our controlling metaphors and how they both guide and limit and expand our perceptions.  That is, I think, one of the important aspects of checking our own eye for beams, and considering whether our we ought to try new wine bottles for new wine.  But there is no question about getting rid of metaphor and symbol.  As though strict literism will do.  Any attempt to do without fails.  

From my Light and Perspective essay

At the right moment, a parable can open a person's eyes.  As Samuel did in telling a parable of the violent theft of a lamb, to King David, and so opened David's eyes to a sense of his own guilt in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba.  A paradigm can blind a person, as Othello's paradigm and interpretation of evidence demonstrates.  He was not objectively following the facts to the murder of Desdemona, but following a logic that was saddled to his own fears and passions.  A metaphor can demonstrate just how blind a person is, as when the Captain Moroni metaphor was once applied to a politician who much more closely resembles King Noah.  Every metaphor has both positive and negative analogies.  Every metaphor or parable is focused on likeness and pattern, and therefore, limited by definition.   Every metaphor, parable and symbol offers infinite comparisons, and is also, unlimited in important ways.  (Ian Barbour is good on that.)

So maps are not the territory, symbols are not the things symbolized, but they are essentials towards gaining understanding.  As Alma's parable in his chapter 32 demonstrates. Symbols point beyond themselves to something real.  And the way to measure just how real, how well any particular symbol guides us to the territory it puports to map, is spelled out by Alma 32 and Thomas Kuhn.  Testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

My first exposure to S. I. Hayakawa was in high school. It was foundational to my understanding of the concept of connotative and denotative meaning in words and using language with precision. 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/17/2021 at 7:51 AM, Navidad said:

I think we are declared clean by the shed blood of the sacrificial lamb - an OT archetype (or type - to throw in another term) of Christ - the ultimate sacrifice. It is the same when we claim to be righteous - we are declared righteous - we become, here on earth the literal symbol or archetype of what we will be in heaven. Baptism is a symbol or type of death burial and resurrection. I have never heard of anyone literally dying in a baptism pool, font, river, or swimming pool.  I would also add the concept of "worthy" to this. My LDS friends put great emphasis on "being worthy." I would suggest we never in this life will "be worthy." Via the shed blood of Christ we are declared worthy, we never actually become worthy of redemption, the indwelling of the Spirit, eternal life, etc. We are declared worthy, while still unworthy, because the worthiness with which we are declared is that of Christ. There is no other anyone who has ever been human who is worthy, except for Christ - that is why He is the unigenito - the only-begotten, the first born - all of which apply to his uniqueness among humans. So no, neither baptism, repentance, being born again, or any other act of the human will or agency makes us worthy. Somewhere in all of that we are declared worthy. We only actually become worthy when resurrected and declared good and faithful by  Christ, at that point not only the redemptor, counsel for the accused, and judge as well.

Two theological differences here:

1 . We can be called "worthy" after all we can do, as you imply.  So call it worthy or not. Much ado about nothing

2. "Unigenito" is Spanish, derived from Latin Scholasticism,  implying also "one nature", I believe.

  Yes Christ is the only begotten of Father in the flesh. Both Father and the Son manifest the full measure of humanity's creation as do some others who become exalted 

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Unigenito" is Spanish, derived from Latin Scholasticism,  implying also "one nature", I believe.

I am allowed to use a Spanish word - after all I do live in Mexico! Ha! I believe in this usage the word has much to do with its Anglicized twin - unique. I don't relate it to "one nature," but to the only unique - one of a kind - worthy one! I have never known worthy to be a word used to signify a continuum. I always have thought of worthy as either you are or you ain't. Christ is and we ain't ---- even after all we can do. It is with His worthiness that we are and will be clothed at the judgment seat. Thanks for interacting on this. Perhaps you are simply agreeing with me about worthiness - that we really aren't - but will be declared to be inspite of our shortcomings.  I find these conversations stimulating. I hope I am doing better in expressing myself sans (not Spanish) rancor. Take care.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have never known worthy to be a word used to signify a continuum.

We do it all the time. It is our duty to keep becoming more worthy of ever higher goals and purposes.  Worthy for baptism doesn't mean worthy for the temple, or being the prophet.

It is like the Protestant idea of having a "crown of glory" and / or jewels in your crown etc. 

Also, in Spanish dictionaries "unigenito" means "only begotten". If you look at the etymology in Latin that becomes clear, and in some cases quite graphically refers to biological fatherhood.

THAT of course makes Christ unique in that he is the biological son of God, but not unique in having a Godly "nature", which word, to me, is virtually meaningless. It tells us nothing other than dogs are dogs, fish are fish, men are men, etc.

For us Christ does not have two natures, he has one human nature which contains the ability to become Godlike, as we all do, as a caterpillars nature may transform it to a butterfly.

Yet of course in the pre-existence, he was already infinitely more valiant than any of us, and so he was chosen to become Savior.

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We do it all the time. It is our duty to keep becoming more worthy of ever higher goals and purposes.  Worthy for baptism doesn't mean worthy for the temple, or being the prophet.

It is like the Protestant idea of having a "crown of glory" and / or jewels in your crown etc. 

Also, in Spanish dictionaries "unigenito" means "only begotten". If you look at the etymology in Latin that becomes clear, and in some cases quite graphically refers to biological fatherhood.

THAT of course makes Christ unique in that he is the biological son of God, but not unique in having a Godly "nature", which word, to me, is virtually meaningless. It tells us nothing other than dogs are dogs, fish are fish, men are men, etc.

For us Christ does not have two natures, he has one human nature which contains the ability to become Godlike, as we all do, as a caterpillars nature may transform it to a butterfly.

Yet of course in the pre-existence, he was already infinitely more valiant than any of us, and so he was chosen to become Savior.

 

HI Mark: This is a post that I really need to make sure I understand. I need to know if your statements about Christ's nature(s) represent Markodoxy or LDS orthodoxy? I understand the idea of LDS emphasis on orthopraxy versus orthodoxy, but certainly when it comes to the nature of Christ, there must be an LDS clear and unambiguous doctrinal statement. I simply don't want to misunderstand you. No debate involved; this is all about my correctly and accurately understanding what is obviously a very important doctrinal belief.

Are you saying that Christ has no more divinity that any other human - just divinity in potential? He may have reached a higher potentiality that the rest of us, or the highest potential that a human is eternally capable of, but He is still on a continuum just like all of us? Christ throughout his existence has undergone exaltation? He has achieved celestial exaltation or potential to actual Godliness in the same way that any human might? Is Christ more divine today (in September 2021) than Joseph Smith, Moses, Elijah, Peter, etc, or are they equals? Christ has no more of the spark (since you don't like the word nature) of divinity than any other human being - but has achieved a higher degree of worthiness (in your context) than most or any other might? If this is accurate, is it also the same for Heavenly Father? He is fully human, but perhaps not completely fully divine, or of a divine nature? Only one nature (human) with potentially greater degree of Godliness?

You have consistently and regularly maintained that I don't understand LDS doctrine (such as you acknowledge that it exists). If I am interpreting your post correctly, and if what you have written represents what President Nelson would say about Christ, then you are probably right. Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

HI Mark: This is a post that I really need to make sure I understand. I need to know if your statements about Christ's nature(s) represent Markodoxy or LDS orthodoxy? I understand the idea of LDS emphasis on orthopraxy versus orthodoxy, but certainly when it comes to the nature of Christ, there must be an LDS clear and unambiguous doctrinal statement. I simply don't want to misunderstand you. No debate involved; this is all about my correctly and accurately understanding what is obviously a very important doctrinal belief.

Are you saying that Christ has no more divinity that any other human - just divinity in potential? He may have reached a higher potentiality that the rest of us, or the highest potential that a human is eternally capable of, but He is still on a continuum just like all of us? Christ throughout his existence has undergone exaltation? He has achieved celestial exaltation or potential to actual Godliness in the same way that any human might? Is Christ more divine today (in September 2021) than Joseph Smith, Moses, Elijah, Peter, etc, or are they equals? Christ has no more of the spark (since you don't like the word nature) of divinity than any other human being - but has achieved a higher degree of worthiness (in your context) than most or any other might? If this is accurate, is it also the same for Heavenly Father? He is fully human, but perhaps not completely fully divine, or of a divine nature? Only one nature (human) with potentially greater degree of Godliness?

You have consistently and regularly maintained that I don't understand LDS doctrine (such as you acknowledge that it exists). If I am interpreting your post correctly, and if what you have written represents what President Nelson would say about Christ, then you are probably right. Thanks.

Gota get to church, but is the hymn "Hie to Kolob" in the Spanish hymnal? I suspect not.  Read the King Follett discourse.

Back to you later today 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

HI Mark: This is a post that I really need to make sure I understand. I need to know if your statements about Christ's nature(s) represent Markodoxy or LDS orthodoxy? I understand the idea of LDS emphasis on orthopraxy versus orthodoxy, but certainly when it comes to the nature of Christ, there must be an LDS clear and unambiguous doctrinal statement. I simply don't want to misunderstand you. No debate involved; this is all about my correctly and accurately understanding what is obviously a very important doctrinal belief.

Are you saying that Christ has no more divinity that any other human - just divinity in potential? He may have reached a higher potentiality that the rest of us, or the highest potential that a human is eternally capable of, but He is still on a continuum just like all of us? Christ throughout his existence has undergone exaltation? He has achieved celestial exaltation or potential to actual Godliness in the same way that any human might? Is Christ more divine today (in September 2021) than Joseph Smith, Moses, Elijah, Peter, etc, or are they equals? Christ has no more of the spark (since you don't like the word nature) of divinity than any other human being - but has achieved a higher degree of worthiness (in your context) than most or any other might? If this is accurate, is it also the same for Heavenly Father? He is fully human, but perhaps not completely fully divine, or of a divine nature? Only one nature (human) with potentially greater degree of Godliness?

You have consistently and regularly maintained that I don't understand LDS doctrine (such as you acknowledge that it exists). If I am interpreting your post correctly, and if what you have written represents what President Nelson would say about Christ, then you are probably right. Thanks.

I also suggest you read this, from the Encyclopedia  of Mormonism, it is semi-official and well represents our beliefs

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/God_the_Father

More later.... 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

HI Mark: This is a post that I really need to make sure I understand. I need to know if your statements about Christ's nature(s) represent Markodoxy or LDS orthodoxy? I understand the idea of LDS emphasis on orthopraxy versus orthodoxy, but certainly when it comes to the nature of Christ, there must be an LDS clear and unambiguous doctrinal statement. I simply don't want to misunderstand you. No debate involved; this is all about my correctly and accurately understanding what is obviously a very important doctrinal belief.

OK, well I have given you a few quotes which I see as making my position 'legitimate" and hope you grow in your LDS journey to see them that way- at least for us as our beliefs- which of course you may accept or not.

I like you and like to discuss things with you, so after 41 years in the church and having been in every calling  for men "below" Stake Presidency including bishop and temple worker, they have not kicked me out yet, so I will do my best to be strictly "orthodox" in my explanations- and there are certainly enough folks here to point out my mistakes if I make any.

I will go through all the questions one by one.  A note on "doctrine" and its meaning for us- it is defined as what is "consistently taught" in church publications, conference etc.- and so that will also be my criteria

Again, Mormon Doctrine by McConkie is NOT a good source, but the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" seems to have become a quasi-official source.

Quote

Are you saying that Christ has no more divinity that any other human - just divinity in potential? He may have reached a higher potentiality that the rest of us, or the highest potential that a human is eternally capable of, but He is still on a continuum just like all of us? Christ throughout his existence has undergone exaltation?

Man, you like to get into the tough ones huh?

Well as a fully orthodox Wittgensteinian, let me say that the words just sometimes get in the way, and there is a whole slew of words here, maybe even two or three slews.

So any sentence I say could become an entier thread if you want to show that we we do believe what I am telling you.   I am willing if you are, and that way the board can verify the points I am making.

In general LDS see "eternal progression" as just what the words say- a progression that goes on eternally.  So that means that virtually all progression by all beings CAN go on forever,  with no end.  So EVERYTHING for us is a continuum without limits.   There IS no end to progression, it's not something that eventually you "have" and now you're done.

It's like getting your Phd- there is a point in time that you get it, but it doesn't stop there, now you get to write books and papers and make a reputation, and climb higher and higher in your discipline etc, but for eternity!

So too with "divinity".  It's not a switch you throw and in one second you go from having no divinity to having all possible divinity.

So let's use another word for "divinity"- and the word "intelligence" is actually used in the scriptures nearly as a synonym for "divinity" or "glory", but it is a good word because one can grow forever in "intelligence" where "divinity" carries a connotation that either one has it or one does not.

So do you understand our idea of the Pre-existence?   We were all born of Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father as spirits.  AS on earth, some of us naturally had more "intelligence" about spiritual matters, but it is said that of ALL the spirits- all humans who were yet unborn, meaning all humans- ONE was the "most intelligent" of them all, and that was He who was to become Christ

Let's start with Heavenly Father and Mother.  It is scriptural that Christ has not done anything that he has not seen his father do.  We take that as an implication that Father must also have lived on an earth like ours- in a different "eternity"- because of course there was no time reference in THIS eternity until Father created time for us, AFTER he reached exaltation himself- and of course we do not "know" much about either.  Yet we do know scripturally that there are and were many many worlds before us and that will come after us. That is what exaltation IS, that we can become fathers and mothers of worlds- universes- etc after countless eons of progression.

Remember- all humans are co-eternal with God, meaning eternal in one direction and that is forward- but also realize that for our Father, El, (let's say) since he created THIS eternity- it is in a sense HIS (and Mother's) eternity.  We are talking here about HIS and his WIFE's "eternity", so language cannot handle the idea of "before eternity" BUT in this context where there can be multi-verses (scientifically justified paradigm) it IS possible.   So in THIS eternity we can be "co-eternal" with God- since it is the only eternity we can possibly know about except of course what is revealed.

So now let me answer the above quoted question!  {    Are you saying that Christ has no more divinity that any other human - just divinity in potential? He may have reached a higher potentiality that the rest of us, or the highest potential that a human is eternally capable of, but He is still on a continuum just like all of us? Christ throughout his existence has undergone exaltation?   }

I would say that Christ now has what we would call "infinite intelligence" in that there is no way to measure or even determine how much "intelligence-divinity" he has relative to us.   It is a dead ended question EXCEPT to say simply, "Yes He is infinitely above us"

No He has not "reached his limits" but yes is still on a continuum just like us.  We are all on the same "elevator" but some are moving quicker than others- that is MY personal understanding, not church doctrine.   I can't understand it any other way.

Christ throughout his eternal existence- (but remember He co-eternal (in this "eternity") with Father AND all of we who are spirit children of El=Father )began as an "intelligence" as we all do (totally doctrinal) but he was already "more intelligent" spiritually than any of us but still had much to learn.   Yes he was a God before he came to earth- known as "Jehovah" in the OT.  There is no way of knowing "when"- as if when even makes sense in the eternities-  he crossed the line of being "exalted" or not.  I suspect he was always that way.
 

Quote

 

He has achieved celestial exaltation or potential to actual Godliness in the same way that any human might?

 

No way of knowing but yes, we can all become like Him.

Quote

 Is Christ more divine today (in September 2021) than Joseph Smith, Moses, Elijah, Peter, etc, or are they equals?

Unknowable, but I cannot conceive how that could be the case.  His progression and ours is continuous.   This is not an Olympic sprint.

Hopefully by now you can see how these questions are getting a little.... off base. 

Quote

Christ has no more of the spark (since you don't like the word nature) of divinity than any other human being - but has achieved a higher degree of worthiness (in your context) than most or any other might? If this is accurate, is it also the same for Heavenly Father? He is fully human, but perhaps not completely fully divine, or of a divine nature? Only one nature (human) with potentially greater degree of Godliness?

Hopefully this has already been answered- if not let me know!
 

Quote

You have consistently and regularly maintained that I don't understand LDS doctrine (such as you acknowledge that it exists). If I am interpreting your post correctly, and if what you have written represents what President Nelson would say about Christ, then you are probably right. Thanks.

In my opinion, I am quite sure that what I have said would be quite close to what President Nelson would have said.

Let those who disagree, disagree!

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Again, Mormon Doctrine by McConkie is NOT a good source, but the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" seems to have become a quasi-official source

Gospel Principles is an official source, though it may not go into much depth. 
 

I think that and GospelTopics are the best starting places, no need to stop there of course. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So too with "divinity".  It's not a switch you throw and in one second you go from having no divinity to having all possible divinity.

I would also describe it as Christ having access to his divinity during his mortal existence while the rest of us do not, at least not without the Spirit. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We take that as an implication that Father must also have lived on an earth like ours- in a different "eternity"

Some interpret it as another world in the same universe. They, if I understand them correctly, see the Father as having created many worlds in the universe, but not the Universe itself. And that we will create worlds in this universe as well. 
 

Quote

Remember- all humans are co-eternal with God, meaning eternal in one direction and that is forward-

Some interpret coeternal as in both directions, having existed forever in some form.   I am one. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would also describe it as Christ having access to his divinity during his mortal existence while the rest of us do not, at least not without the Spirit. 

OOO- good one!

But then I might ask if that makes Him different than us in "nature"?  That creates a loophole big enough to drive a chapel through. 

 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Some interpret it as another world in the same universe. They, if I understand them correctly, see the Father as having created many worlds in the universe, but not the Universe itself. And that we will create worlds in this universe as well. 
 

Some interpret coeternal as in both directions, having existed forever in some form. 

Yep, I can see both of those as possibilities