The Symbol IS / IS NOT The Thing

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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. 

 

Nope I am wrong- he was already divine - heck HE is Jehovah!

So fergitabout that one!  My bad!

[Calm]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

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. 

 

My brain fog is a great analogy Imo for the spiritual and knowledge veil that we experience at birth and throughout mortality, imo. I cannot access memory or initiate certain rational abilities during these times, sometimes to a point it feels like there is instantly a wall in my mind that I suddenly slammed into.  
 

My brain fog does not change my nature, it simply limits access to some of my abilities. 
 

I don’t see Christ having access to certain divine abilities when we do not unless through the Spirit (example: healing) as changing his nature any more than when we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost or when we are in better tune to the Spirit our nature changes.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/16/2021 at 10:23 PM, Calm said:

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….

Yes correct- I forgot about that!  So yes perhaps that helped her learn about "symbols" after she had already seen water- just as a child learns that words "represent" an experience.  

The point of course is that that "proves" that symbols are NOT the experience- or as is mischaracterized here, the "thing"

"Things" would not "exist"- in any relevant way to humans-  in a world where no one experienced them.

Take God for an example,  The only way to know he "exists" is to experience him in one way or another

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My brain fog is a great analogy Imo for the spiritual and knowledge veil that we experience at birth and throughout mortality, imo. I cannot access memory or initiate certain rational abilities during these times, sometimes to a point it feels like there is instantly a wall in my mind that I suddenly slammed into.  
 

My brain fog does not change my nature, it simply limits access to some of my abilities. 
 

I don’t see Christ having access to certain divine abilities when we do not unless through the Spirit (example: healing) as changing his nature any more than when we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost or when we are in better tune to the Spirit our nature changes.

Yes I see it now.

Jehovah the Word- "by whom all things were made" suddenly learns little by little as a child?

Pretty much the only explanation has to be something like "brain fog".   I am old enough to experience that with names now- sometimes it takes a long time for them to come back to me!

On the other hand, none of us remember the pre-existence! So the Veil was not exclusive 

Edited September 20, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Sorry, I don't have a copy of a Spanish hymnbook here at the house. The ward I go to is 90% English.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sorry, I don't have a copy of a Spanish hymnbook here at the house. The ward I go to is 90% English.

This official source backs up all I told you about becoming like God, and human potential.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This official source backs up all I told you about becoming like God, and human potential.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

Mark: I think you and I are of the same nature! Here it is 2:55AM and I am on the forum. It is 1:55AM where you are and you are on the forum. Many of my mestizo friends here in Mexico have a programmed-in dread, bordering on fear of night owls. There is a feared progression in evidence - owl - lechusa - bruja. As for me, I enjoy sitting here in my office from which, with the door open I can hear the owls in the trees along the river. In their calling, I can almost hear them doing the equivalent of pecking on the keyboard as I am now with you. I think the owls and the doves communicate verbally more than any other birds in our little bit of paradise here on the banks of the Palanganas.

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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!

Thanks so very much Mark for your lengthy reply to my questions. I enjoyed reading your link to the encyclopedia, less so the gospel topics essays. The latter seem written to a non-LDS audience, partially for the purpose of presenting an ideal image, rather than the more candid and perhaps accurate (phenomenological) image of the Saints, as those on a spiritual journey and to some degree, struggling just like the rest of us.

I did get some insight from the gospel topic essay in this phrase, "The teaching that human beings have a divine nature and future shapes the way Latter-day Saints view fundamental doctrine. Perhaps most significantly, belief in divine nature helps us more deeply appreciate the Atonement of Jesus Christ."  The light bulb that went on for me from that is along the lines that perhaps my LDS friends may not, in reality have a "lesser than" perspective on the nature of Christ and the Father, as they are often accused of by non-LDS Christians. The more accurate statement might be that they (you) have a higher perspective of the potential of human nature as divine than we do. This makes it appear that you are lowering the status of the Godhead as divine, when in reality you may be instead, raising the status of the human as divine. They (you) have a different interpretation of humans being made in the image of God than we do. It is a higher view of human potential, rather than a lower view of the Godhead. To say that God the Father and Son are human, in my view makes them less than because of my lower view of humanity and the great gulf (gap) between the human and the divine. It is ingrained in me not to see the human and the divine as a continuum. They are two natures worlds apart. We strive and strive to be like God; knowing that we will never be as God. You see it as logically possible to progress to being as God, especially given your higher view of the divine spark within humanity.

This difference in perspective on what it means to be human, might be more critical to understand than what it means to be divine. Our perspectives on this issue/difference are deeply ingrained in our respective understanding of humanity and the Godhead. Sometimes I am beginning to think, both sides enjoy getting lost in debates over things like the trinity and the concomitant debates about how the "oneness" of the Godhead works. We then don't spend enough time on the differences in our understanding of what it means to be human or fully human for each of us. Our focus is on depravity; yours is on potential. Perhaps that doesn't mean you think less than of God; but more than about humanity. If that is correct, the implications are great.

I think both sides are guilty of the simplification of the complicated for marketing and border/boundary protection purposes. We can each be more interested in pushing the milk because it is easier to win converts (jewels in our respective metaphorical crowns) than digging deeper to understand the meat of our differences and similarities. Even the inter-faith guys are guilty of this. They are content all too often to be nice via mutual assistance in social issues and then pronounce with satisfaction and pride that something of an inter-faith nature has happened. Both sides do that. That isn't good enough for me. Each side already has thee "truth" so why bother to truly understand and receive the others' truth? We each have our mutual biases and stereotypes which we clutch to our bosoms. That is much easier than taking the time, effort, and energy to truly understand the other, especially if our primary motivation is the conversion, enlightening, teaching, etc. of the other. We each have a mortal fear of being enlightened ourselves, and egads, potentially being converted ourselves, so we block, defend, and rest comfortably and assuredly in our respective uncomfortable experiences, contacts, etc. with the other. The knock on the door by the guys in the white shirts and black name tags and the encounters at Temple Square, the Manti pageant, and various street corners with the dreaded "anti-Mormons" are sufficient to firmly establish our stereotypes and generalizations about the other. This defense mechanism keeps us from ever getting deeper and broader in our interactions. That takes time, effort, and thought and probably won't lead to jewels. Sorry, going on too long now. Thanks and best wishes.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Navidad

[bOObOO]

On 9/15/2021 at 10:03 AM, bluebell said:

From my perspective though, none of those things are literal.  We aren't literally born of water.  That rebirth is symbolic.  No one comes out of the water as a literal new being-becoming the new being in Christ is a process.  Being dunked into water and then coming up out again also isn't a literal birth.  We are symbolically born of water in that instance, not literally born. 

I would say we are literally born of water when we are baptized in water because at that point we have a literal new father (Jesus Christ) and a literal new mother (the Church, bride of Christ) through whom we are literally born again.  And yes while becoming the new being we will become is a process, starting as literal babes through Christ and the Church until we become fully perfected in them, him and her, it is a literal process and we are literally that new being every step of the way through the complete process, as long as we endure and stick to the program. 

On 9/15/2021 at 10:03 AM, bluebell said:

What would the laying on of hands be a symbol of?  It's a sign of something but I don't see it as symbolising something.

Laying on of hands is a literal sign and there are many reasons and purposes for using that sign... to transfer priesthood authority, for an anointing to prepare for healing the sick or to heal the sick to give a blessing, etc.

[bOObOO]

On 9/15/2021 at 11:52 AM, ksfisher said:

How can the literal water do anything more than rinse you off. 

Before mortal birth the water the baby lives in until the moment of birth are the little world that little baby lives in, and I would not say that water is rinsing that baby off.  It is simply what the baby lives in until being born into a world bigger than a womb.

[ksfisher]

42 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Before mortal birth the water the baby lives in until the moment of birth are the little world that little baby lives in, and I would not say that water is rinsing that baby off.  It is simply what the baby lives in until being born into a world bigger than a womb.

That's not what we were talking about.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Our focus is on depravity; yours is on potential. Perhaps that doesn't mean you think less than of God; but more than about humanity. If that is correct, the implications are great.

This is why I see the that the church has a tremendous affinity for humanist converts if they could see us as theistic humanists! 

But no, we invent a cartoon version of humanism as "evil" and "relativistic", and postmodernism as incompatible with an idea of a rock solid temple of "TRVTH",  while all along ignoring that we are all created by LOGOS, THE WORD.

We LDS folks still have the need to come to a full understanding of our kinship with humanism, instead of seeing it as the enemy. We are losing members because we don't see it!!

And I think that our notion that the "Fall" was part of God's plan, and a step forward for humanity, instead of a source of depravity, and "original sin" is also what sets us apart, in seeing humanity as innately having divine potential.

That also then affects our notion of the role that baptism plays on our progression.  And then also the importance of faith vs works.

We come down more toward works and worthiness than you do, since, though we ARE saved by grace, "after all we can do" a lot of it is up to us

But then also we can progress after death so there is less urgency to "get it done" there is no need for the idea that one can know the date and time that one was allegedly "saved", and no eternal hell to burn in.

And on it goes.

No need to explain how 3 persons can be one, we already naturally know what it is to be a family or team, unified in getting the job done.

And on the doctrines go affecting every little nook and corner of the way we think and act, and ensuring that the creeds just don't work for us 

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, bOObOO said:

I would say we are literally born of water when we are baptized in water because at that point we have a literal new father (Jesus Christ) and a literal new mother (the Church, bride of Christ) through whom we are literally born again.  And yes while becoming the new being we will become is a process, starting as literal babes through Christ and the Church until we become fully perfected in them, him and her, it is a literal process and we are literally that new being every step of the way through the complete process, as long as we endure and stick to the program. 

Laying on of hands is a literal sign and there are many reasons and purposes for using that sign... to transfer priesthood authority, for an anointing to prepare for healing the sick or to heal the sick to give a blessing, etc.

Being "Born Again" is a metaphor. You keep saying "literal" but I do not think that word means what you think it means.

One could be "spiritually" born with a new father and new mother, but again, that isn't a literal birth. You might even say a "literal" spiritual birth, which may stretch it a little BUT would at least show you understand what "literal" means  

 

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

That's not what we were talking about.

  I like adding additional thoughts that other people have not mentioned yet.

Water present at birth is not for cleansing, was the point I was adding.  The water is simply there as part of the environment of a person who is born whenever a person is born or born again.   And the water is an essential component, as essential I would say as the parents are essential.  And without water, and without parents, a person can not be born or born again.

[bOObOO]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Being "Born Again" is a metaphor. You keep saying "literal" but I do not think that word means what you think it means.

One could be "spiritually" born with a new father and new mother, but again, that isn't a literal birth. You might even say a "literal" spiritual birth, which may stretch it a little BUT would at least show you understand what "literal" means  

 

I say being born or born again is literal because the birth process is a literal process involving literal components, such as parents and water.  Without parents and water a person can not be born or born again. 

The term "born again" isn't just a catchy phrase, with no literal meaning.  And I would expect any person of the "Evangelical" persuasion to realize the term actually means something literally and to understand what is required for the birth process.

In this case the Father is Jesus Christ and the Mother is his bride, his Church, which is a literal organization that can be sensed with all of the 5 common senses as well as the 6th sense and a sense of humor as well as the ability to reproduce as children.

Edited September 20, 2021 by bOObOO

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I say being born or born again is literal because the birth process is a literal process involving literal components, such as parents and water.  Without parents and water a person can not be born or born again. 

The term "born again" isn't just a catchy phrase, with no literal meaning.  And I would expect any person of the "Evangelical" persuasion to realize the term actually means something literally and to understand what is required for the birth process.

In this case the Father is Jesus Christ and the Mother is his bride, his Church, which is a literal organization that can be sensed with all of the 5 common senses as well as the 6th sense and a sense of humor as well as the ability to reproduce as children.

But wait a minute!

How come we are children of God then BEFORE baptism?

It's ok.

We're literally imprisoning electrons here, against their will. 

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bOObOO]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But wait a minute!

How come we are children of God then BEFORE baptism?

It's ok.

We're wasting electrons.

 

Because we have already been born of water and the spirit of God, which is why we use the term born again in this context.

Each time we are born, parents and water are involved and considered essential to the birth process.  So far, each of us who are mortal on this planet has been born at least 2 times, and parents and water were involved and essential each time.

Satan and those who followed him after the war and rebellion in heaven have been born only once, and those who have been born again through Jesus Christ and his Church have been born 3 times, with parents and water involved and essential each time.

And I would not worry about wasting electrons if I were you.  Feel free to say whatever you want to say as much as you would like to try to communicate with other people.  Whether you use symbols or whatever else you want to use.

Edited September 20, 2021 by bOObOO

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Because we have already been born of water and the spirit of God, which is why we use the term born again in this context.

Each time we are born, parents and water are involved and considered essential to the birth process.  So far, each of us who are mortal on this planet has been born at least 2 times, and parents and water were involved and essential each time.

Satan and those who followed him after the war and rebellion in heaven have been born only once, and those who have been born again through Jesus Christ and his Church have been born 3 times, with parents and water involved and essential each time.

And I would not worry about wasting electrons if I were you.  Feel free to say whatever you want to say as much as you would like to try to communicate with other people.  Whether you use symbols or whatever else you want to use.

So if I claimed to be Born again as a Pastafarian by bridge jumping into a river and called the bridge my father and the air my mother, would that be a "literal" rebirth? It involves a father, a mother, and water.

I don't mean this to be sacrilegious in terms of being born again as Christians, just pointing out that there is nothing literal about it and your logic behind why it is "literal" just doesn't hold up.

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if I claimed to be Born again as a Pastafarian by bridge jumping into a river and called the bridge my father and the air my mother, would that be a "literal" rebirth? It involves a father, a mother, and water.

Let's compare that type of "birth" or "rebirth" (if you or others want to call it that) to the other 3 types of birth or rebirth we are aware of. 

1st birth: Literal immortal Father and literal immortal Mother reproducing themselves as other literal immortal spirits

2nd birth: Literal mortal Father and literal mortal Mother reproducing themselves as other mortal bodies, all mortals as literal immortal spirits combined with literal mortal bodies  

        2nd birth extraordinary exception:  Jesus Christ's mortal body reproduced by an literal immortal Father and a literal mortal Mother)

3rd birth: Literal immortal Father (Jesus Christ) working with a literal mortal Organization acting in the role of a Bride and Mother to produce or reproduce literal offspring together

 

The first 2 of the 3 involve literal parents, a literal man and a literal woman working and acting in the role of Father and Mother.   The 3rd option consists of a literal man working and acting together with an Organization of literal people, both male and female

So what do you think of your example now and how it compares with those 3 types?  A bridge and the air are literal things but none are either a man or a woman.  I don't think it compares well with the other 3 types.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't mean this to be sacrilegious in terms of being born again as Christians, just pointing out that there is nothing literal about it and your logic behind why it is "literal" just doesn't hold up.

You are of course free to disagree with me and believe whatever else you would rather believe

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Let's compare that type of "birth" or "rebirth" (if you or others want to call it that) to the other 3 types of birth or rebirth we are aware of. 

1st birth: Literal immortal Father and literal immortal Mother reproducing themselves as other literal immortal spirits

2nd birth: Literal mortal Father and literal mortal Mother reproducing themselves as other mortal bodies, all mortals as literal immortal spirits combined with literal mortal bodies  

        2nd birth extraordinary exception:  Jesus Christ's mortal body reproduced by an literal immortal Father and a literal mortal Mother)

3rd birth: Literal immortal Father (Jesus Christ) working with a literal mortal Organization acting in the role of a Bride and Mother to produce or reproduce literal offspring together

 

The first 2 of the 3 involve literal parents, a literal man and a literal woman working and acting in the role of Father and Mother.   The 3rd option consists of a literal man working and acting together with an Organization of literal people, both male and female

So what do you think of your example now and how it compares with those 3 types?  A bridge and the air are literal things but none are either a man or a woman.  I don't think it compares well with the other 3 types.

You are of course free to disagree with me and believe whatever else you would rather believe

I'm not trying to beat you over the head with logic here but...  I'm just hoping you grasp the difference between literal and figurative.

You said the re-birth is literal because there is a literal father and mother and water. Those were your criteria for birth so I came up with a silly example that meets those qualifications but that you wouldn't want to accept even though it meets your definition. Instead of bridge and air (which were "acting in the role" of a father and mother), I could claim the father is Pope John and the Mother is Joan of Arc. It doesn't make any difference to me but if you feel it has to be a male and a female, there you go. (FYI-An organization like the church is neither male or female. It's a metaphorical representation.)  So now my example fits your definition for birth, a male father, a female mother, and water. Is that now a literal rebirth?

 And just one comment on your 1st Birth- "Literal immortal Father and literal immortal Mother reproducing themselves as other literal immortal spirits"   Are you privy to some doctrine I'm not aware of that explains how spirits are organized/created/born? Or are are you making assumptions based on human biology despite both parties being "immortal" and calling it "literal".

Look, my only real gripe here is your all-too-liberal use of "literal" when things are figurative, not literal. I'm done now  

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Look, my only real gripe here is your all-too-liberal use of "literal" when things are figurative, not literal. I'm done now 

[bOObOO]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not trying to beat you over the head with logic here but...  I'm just hoping you grasp the difference between literal and figurative.

You said the re-birth is literal because there is a literal father and mother and water. Those were your criteria for birth so I came up with a silly example that meets those qualifications but that you wouldn't want to accept even though it meets your definition.

The 3 types of birth I mentioned involve a literal Father who is a literal man and a literal Mother who is a literal woman, except in the case where the Church is the Mother but even in that case the Church is composed of literal women (as well as literal men)

And yes I agree that your example was silly and did not involve a literal man as a literal Father or a literal woman as a literal Mother.  Maybe if you came up with an example like mine it would help you to see my point and that I am being literally logical.   

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Instead of bridge and air (which were "acting in the role" of a father and mother), I could claim the father is Pope John and the Mother is Joan of Arc. It doesn't make any difference to me but if you feel it has to be a male and a female, there you go. (FYI-An organization like the church is neither male or female. It's a metaphorical representation.)  So now my example fits your definition for birth, a male father, a female mother, and water. Is that now a literal rebirth?

 And just one comment on your 1st Birth- "Literal immortal Father and literal immortal Mother reproducing themselves as other literal immortal spirits"   Are you privy to some doctrine I'm not aware of that explains how spirits are organized/created/born? Or are are you making assumptions based on human biology despite both parties being "immortal" and calling it "literal".

Another topic for another discussion, later, maybe.

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Look, my only real gripe here is your all-too-liberal use of "literal" when things are figurative, not literal. I'm done now  

Yes I can see that you're griping because I don't agree with you.  I'm done with trying to explain this further for you now too.

[bOObOO]

On 9/14/2021 at 3:10 PM, JLHPROF said:

Can you think of times when a gospel symbol IS or IS NOT the actual thing it supposedly represents?

Scratching my brain... The only examples I can think of in which a symbol IS the actual thing the symbol represents is when what the symbol represents IS the actual symbol itself.  The letter A for example is a symbol that represents whatever the letter A is.

Any symbol represents whatever it represents by use of that a symbol.  A picture of a tree for example is a symbol for a tree but is not the actual tree the symbol represents.  And while an actual tree may be a symbol for all trees it is not actually every tree.

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

The 3 types of birth I mentioned involve a literal Father who is a literal man and a literal Mother who is a literal woman, except in the case where the Church is the Mother but even in that case the Church is composed of literal women (as well as literal men)

And yes I agree that your example was silly and did not involve a literal man as a literal Father or a literal woman as a literal Mother.  Maybe if you came up with an example like mine it would help you to see my point and that I am being literally logical.   

Another topic for another discussion, later, maybe.

Yes I can see that you're griping because I don't agree with you.  I'm done with trying to explain this further for you now too.

Come on Ahab, get a dictionary

This is ludicrous!

lit·er·al

/ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/

Learn to pronounce

 

adjective

1. 1.

   taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

   "dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread"

    
2. 2.

   (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.

   "a literal translation from the Spanish"

    

   People are not words

   If you are not speaking the language correctly, don't be surprised if no one understands you 

Edited September 20, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bOObOO]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Come on Ahab, get a dictionary

This is ludicrous!

lit·er·al

/ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/

Learn to pronounce

 

adjective

1. 1.

   taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

   "dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread"

    
2. 2.

   (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.

   "a literal translation from the Spanish"

    

   People are not words

   If you are not speaking the language correctly, don't be surprised if no one understands you 

Try this:  The symbol for family is a man and a woman who are bound together as husband and wife and who have the potential to reproduce themselves by producing children. 

The symbol for family is not a family.  The symbol for family simply represents a type of family as I described it while also representing what a family is and can be, literally.  

I'll elaborate on the concept and purpose of water for you just as soon as I feel you are ready to understand what I have already said in this thread.