The Nehor Posted October 25, 2021 Posted October 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Calm said: He has all powers the universe is capable of producing, but he does not possess powers that do not naturally exist…perhaps he can’t make time go backwards, for example, because that is physically impossible. Perhaps he can’t make gravity disappear, but may be able to apply certain principles that make it appear as if it has been negated like those watching planes would assume is happening if they don’t understand the principles of aerodynamics and how to manipulate air to provide lift. C.S. Lewis: Quote The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no ‘unless’ clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. ‘All agents’ here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it’, you have not succeeded in saying ‘anything’ about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix them with the two other words ‘God can’. It remains true that all ‘things’ are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. It also deals with that theological brain burner: Can God microwave a burrito so hot that not even He could eat it? 3
BlueDreams Posted October 25, 2021 Posted October 25, 2021 (edited) On 10/20/2021 at 5:57 PM, Teancum said: Mosiah 3:19: 19 For the anatural bman is an cenemy to God, and has been from the dfall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he eyields to the enticings of the fHoly Spirit, and gputteth off the hnatural man and becometh a isaint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a jchild, ksubmissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. Why would God create creatures that are his enemy? In Christian thought there are varying ideas on the purpose of creation amongst Christian sects and Mormonism certainly has a unique view. And then there are the philosophies of the Omni's and some LDS thinkers have some interesting ideas on this though LDS scripture seem to tilt towards the more general understanding. I think the omnis play into this. More on this later. But one thought. In LDS thought humans were supposed to fall from grace. Adam and Eve had to fall. Sin had to be introduced into the world. We would all sin so we were destined to become God's enemy. It was planned. This to me some like an insidious plan to create us to have to start as God's enemy. So let's talk about it. I have a few random thoughts. The fall was needed, but the temple hints strongly that the way that we fell was not. I've often wondered what was the more usual protocol about how this was supposed to unfold. But that's on my list of things I definitely don't know. looking into the definition of what it means to be "natural," it focuses on carnal and being focus on things in this world. There's a temporary fixation on the immediate needs that I think of. I don't think God fully created that. He created creatures that could choose that, because the capacity to be fully agentic was necessary to God's purposes. I'd also point out that in this verse, we didn't start off as Enemies to God. It state's that the natural man wasn't really created till the fall. Likewise I don't think humans in general start off with the natural man as the predominant trait. There's a verse in ecclesiates 3:11 that I really like the hebraic alternate translation for. It says "he hath set the eternal in their heart without which man cannot find out the work that God hath done." Our initial nature, the one God actively created, is the eternal nature/focus/beacon in us all. The natural man is one that's brought to us only in a fallen state from the accumulation of choices, beliefs, thoughts, etc that are thoroughly set in the problems and experiences of the moment. The opposition is what creates the opportunity for us to be formed in God's image as beings that see and bring forth the eternal things of God. It seems intrinsic to being God. Christ perfectly chose the eternal. Those who follow Him in all things are described as overcoming all. And doing so gives us dominion/stewardship over all things as joint-heirs. I don't know if I'm making a ton of sense here. I think more relationally than necessarily philosophically. I don't think it's insidious to give us the space to decide our destiny and what we truly value. Our end result is to share in god's nature and to reign with God. The varying states we've been on are embodying us with this capacity/nature. In creation we have God that takes chaos and orders it to fulfill higher purposes. God, to me has a deep fundamental relationship to all that's around us....Their nature is woven into every state of existence....the unorganized matter and the ordered. Which to me make sense. Moving the element to form earth would in some ways be like lifting a hand. It's just a fundamental part of God. We are called to become like God. Therefore we have to learn to make order from disorder. We have to learn to choose a vision of things greater than a current circumstance or disruption. Doing so allows us to partake more fully in the nature of God. 13 hours ago, Teancum said: I don't think LDS thought solves it but it does attempt and I do agree that it is better than any I have found yet. But here is one big problem. So we choose to come here. Did we really know what it entails. It is a big final exam really. Did we know what being mortal in a fallen world meant. And 1/3 of us thought it was a crappy plan and they were condemned forever. So we are here to be tested. And if we pass wonderful. Not so much if we fail. And guess what? We get to forget everything we ever learned and most of us are born into horrible circumstance. This is like sitting for the bar exam, taking the CPA exam or medical exams but having forgot all we learned. So there is that. How is that a benevolent and loving? ANd the LDS God is a risky God as well. Subject to the laws of nature? WHat happens when the Universe suffers a heat death? Does an LDS exalted man escape? LDS thought still leaves a lot of holes in the problem of evil and suffering. The older I've got, the less I've liked exam analogies. It's oversimplified in my opinion. I don't know if we could really know what it entails to be here because our natures couldn't fully comprehend a world that entailed senses and experiences we had no direct access to. We'd never lived outside a sure knowledge of God. In some ways, acceptance of God's plan was our first act of faith....or trusting/hoping in a vision of things greater than our current capacity to know. It obviously wouldn't be our last. A third part of us couldn't act with faith and in some way metastasized around their own limited experience. Their condemnation was inevitable because they chose a nature outside God and God is a part of everything. LDS faith doesn't exactly have a pass-fail model....even when it's simplified. Probably in part because all of us, by nature of being here already "passed" the first test. Or we've already chosen to be part of the Order of God. Which means it's going to be really hard to strip oneself of that (ie. what you'd have to do to become a son of perdition). The vast majority of us will have place in the order of God. I wouldn't describe that as not so wonderful. We do forget specifics...but as mentioned earlier that doesn't mean we've fully forgotten. It's like how people can still have muscle memory. Parts of us still hold an eternal muscle memory, per se. One that has the capacity to overcome all and find God in any circumstance (that's what's stated in more than one way as God's nature). I've seen that more than once in other people. I think that eternal part of us can't help but honor it when we see it. We know we're witnessing something sacred. Both the idea that God is subject to the laws of nature and the universe heat death both represent our tendency to take assumptions and theories as absolute facts/truths. We have a tendency to brush aside just how little we likely know. I likewise know I have holes in my understanding of evil and suffering. I've experienced just enough of God to be okay with that and trust the process. One last random thought. I think there's limits to the spiritual entropy God will allow....either because it will naturally desolve or because it's unfair to His Children (as in the capacity to grow has given way to the previous generations decisions to not)...the flood and end of the BOM are great examples of that. Got to go to bed. With luv, BD Edited October 25, 2021 by BlueDreams 3
mfbukowski Posted October 25, 2021 Posted October 25, 2021 6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: There are plenty of converts to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who who don't believe that simply because they "have been taught to believe it and think it is true." While he can speak for himself, one example of such a convert that springs immediately to mind (and I hope he won't mind my mentioning him ) is our own @mfbukowski. So even if I grant your contention that I "believe it" simply because I was "taught to believe it" and because I "think it is true," that doesn't account for (in the aggregate, at least) the millions of people who came to believe it because a Divine Being communicated the truth of it to their souls. True. I was a rebellious 60's ex- Catholic atheist Marxist obsessed to find if religion had any possible philosophical leg to stand on. I wanted to find any well known atheist who could see that any religious paradigms were justified. There was an entire SCHOOL of philosophy, Pragmatic anti- realism that fit the bill. But the only way religion could be justified is by direct religious experience. Someone gave me a BOM and I found Moroni 10:4-5 Studied more about how Mormonism included tacit humanism, the idea that humans could reach incredible heights of potential, becoming gods. Here we had both humanism, pragmatism, a philosophy that justifies religious experience as "empirical" AND a hope for a utopian society, where all property is shared in common. Nice, but gold plates, Angels and a history of Central America with no (I thought) evidence? Yet it put together a bundle of brilliant paradigms that justified religion, and fit all the philosophical requirements! But philosophy is not justified by history,and biblical history was largely allegorical, with talking donkeys and snakes, the sun stopping, virgin births and dead people rising again. And then I prayed about Moroni's promise. I experienced things unspeakable. That's all I can say about that. And here I am, 43 years on. 3
mfbukowski Posted October 25, 2021 Posted October 25, 2021 7 hours ago, CV75 said: You are saying that God allowing or creating evil is a problem, right? I am saying it isn't a problem with a correct version and application of the Atonement of Christ. A correct understanding puts His allowance of evil (and goodness) in perspective, and makes His creation of evil (and goodness) a non-starter. We have been over this again and again. I am seriously wondering if he is being sincere. There. I said it.
Amulek Posted October 25, 2021 Posted October 25, 2021 21 hours ago, Teancum said: I don't think LDS thought solves it but it does attempt and I do agree that it is better than any I have found yet. When you say you don't think LDS thought solves "it," what is the it you are referring to? We sometimes talk about the problem of evil, but there are actually multiple problems of evil. I do believe that LDS thought solves what I said it solves - which is what philosophers refer to as the logical problem of evil. It also solves other problems outright, such as the soteriological problem of evil (i.e., the fate of the unevangelized). And I think it provides a better framework for accommodating the other problems of evil as well (e.g., the evidential problem of evil), though I readily admit that this last part is a matter of opinion. Quote But here is one big problem. Lay it on me. Quote So we choose to come here. So far, so good. Quote Did we really know what it entails. It is a big final exam really. Did we know what being mortal in a fallen world meant. In some sense, the answer is obviously 'no.' None of us had actually experienced mortality before, so how could we really know what it entails. However, I believe there was more than enough information and understanding for us to make a free choice, which is evidenced by 1/3 electing to opt out of the plan. Quote And 1/3 of us thought it was a crappy plan and they were condemned forever. I don't see how this is a problem with respect to the problem of evil. Quote So we are here to be tested. And if we pass wonderful. Not so much if we fail. In LDS thought, the 'failures' end up in a place better than the world we are currently living in. We are kind of like universalists to a point in that respect. Quote And guess what? We get to forget everything we ever learned and most of us are born into horrible circumstance. This is like sitting for the bar exam, taking the CPA exam or medical exams but having forgot all we learned. So there is that. How is that a benevolent and loving? Satan offered to be the Helicopter God you are looking for. Always hovering over us, making sure no bad thing ever happens to us (or by us). And the only thing you had to give up in exchange for that would be your free will and the potential to actually become like our Father in Heaven. No, forgetting our pre-mortal life was necessary for the preservation of our ability to make an authentically free choice to follow God here in mortality. And, again, I believe it's something we were informed about (and agreed to) before coming here in the first place. Quote And the LDS God is a risky God as well. You mean risky like this: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_God_who_Risks.html?id=um8eVh5WQ5kC Quote Subject to the laws of nature? It is true that Latter-day Saints deny that God is omnipotent in the classical sense. For example, he doesn't create absolutely (i.e., ex nihilo), and there are certain entities or structures which are co-eternal with God himself. Personally, I don't see any of that as being a problem. In fact, God not being the creator of absolutely everything (or of everything absolutely) is what helps solve some of the most challenging problems of evil. Quote WHat happens when the Universe suffers a heat death? Does an LDS exalted man escape? Hopefully we will all find out together some day. Quote LDS thought still leaves a lot of holes in the problem of evil and suffering. I suppose what constitutes "a lot" is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ answers all of the hardest questions relating to the problem of evil. And for those areas that we currently don't have enough understanding to deal with completely, the Atonement of Jesus Christ offers us both a real sense of peace and an assurance that answers are there - even if they aren't all known to us right now. Personally, I think that's pretty awesome.
pogi Posted October 25, 2021 Posted October 25, 2021 23 hours ago, Teancum said: It is evil and suffering. Not just evil. So, you imagine a world without opposition - Satan's plan - to be the ideal?
mfbukowski Posted October 25, 2021 Posted October 25, 2021 (edited) 20 hours ago, Teancum said: I don't buy into nor understand (maybe I am not bright enough to grasp it) your metaphysical mystical approach to seemingly most things. I highly doubt most of your fellow LDS friends to either. I can't account for what other people do or do not understand, sorry. I am as anti-metaphysical as one can be, and believe that nothing can be discussed which is beyond human experience. That is called "Radical Empiricism " The Rorty quote in my siggy below summarizes it. See also "Radical Empiricism" by William James. Perhaps that is more understandable, but I doubt it. Sorry, not sorry. https://www.britannica.com/topic/radical-empiricism The idea is that we cannot discuss what no one has directly experienced. Same for Rorty and all Pragmatists. Metaphysics is something, by definition, that is beyond experience. But God CAN be experienced.- Moroni 10- for those who have had religious experiences. Many atheist philosophers acknowledge this as true, which is why I quote Nagel so much. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/325845-in-speaking-of-the-fear-of-religion-i-don-t-mean Edited October 25, 2021 by mfbukowski 1
Teancum Posted October 25, 2021 Author Posted October 25, 2021 26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I can't account for what other people do or do not understand, sorry. I did not ask that of you. Just want to be sure you recognize this. Plus, you may be very wrong. I think it likely. 26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I am as anti-metaphysical as one can be, and believe that nothing can be discussed which is beyond human experience. That is called "Radical Empiricism " Ok. But your claim to know that the LDS system is the best way to live, grow, advance and whatever seems to be based on some sort of outside empirical evidence experience does it not? If not please explain. 26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The Rorty quote in my siggy below summarizes it. See also "Radical Empiricism" by William James. Perhaps that is more understandable, but I doubt it. Sorry, not sorry. https://www.britannica.com/topic/radical-empiricism The idea is that we cannot discuss what no one has directly experienced. Same for Rorty and all Pragmatists. Metaphysics is something, by definition, that is beyond experience. But God CAN be experienced.- Moroni 10- for those who have had religious experiences. So how is God experiences and how do you define religious experiences? And as I have asked many times, what if yours religious experiences conflict with others religious experiences? 26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Many atheist philosophers acknowledge this as true, which is why I quote Nagel so much. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/325845-in-speaking-of-the-fear-of-religion-i-don-t-mean I will take a look.
Teancum Posted October 25, 2021 Author Posted October 25, 2021 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: We have been over this again and again. I am seriously wondering if he is being sincere. There. I said it. Wonder away. Do you think people who don't totally buy into your explanations are not sincere?
Popular Post let’s roll Posted October 25, 2021 Popular Post Posted October 25, 2021 20 hours ago, Fether said: As for the suffering, this is purely objective and simplified version of it, but if there really is a God and there really is an eternity of happiness and peace to be had… this suffering, no matter how awful, is really nothing when compared to the grand plan. This suffering can also create great spiritual strength and resilience. Just like how God doesn’t stop the suffering of one of his children, I also would not stop my child from trying to learn to walk. Falling over may cause her to cry, but there is a more important lesson to be learned. Using mortal eyes to envision eternal peace often results in the idea that eternal peace is devoid of pain and suffering. However, exaltation involves inheriting all that God has and joining Him in His work, and that work includes suffering. He is the father of both the perpetrator and the victim of every evil act; the father of every starving child. He suffers and weeps and is available to succor them all. Our suffering in mortality, however severe, can provide us only a tiny glimpse into the suffering attendant to joining God in doing His work. As we learn not only to endure such suffering, but to endure it well, we can find peace amid suffering, Divine peace, and provide succor to others who are suffering. 10
Popular Post Stormin' Mormon Posted October 25, 2021 Popular Post Posted October 25, 2021 16 minutes ago, let’s roll said: Using mortal eyes to envision eternal peace often results in the idea that eternal peace is devoid of pain and suffering. However, exaltation involves inheriting all that God has and joining Him in His work, and that work includes suffering. He is the father of both the perpetrator and the victim of every evil act; the father of every starving child. He suffers and weeps and is available to succor them all. Our suffering in mortality, however severe, can provide us only a tiny glimpse into the suffering attendant to joining God in doing His work. As we learn not only to endure such suffering, but to endure it well, we can find peace amid suffering, Divine peace, and provide succor to others who are suffering. This is profound and a new angle to the problem of evil I had never before considered. If the purpose of life is to "become" and one of the things that Our Father wants us to become is "responsive to the sufferings of other," then the only way to achieve that becoming is to be placed in a world where suffering is common (or at least not uncommon). We can't learn empathy in a world where no one suffers. I'm going to spend the rest of the afternoon pondering this thought. If I could give you more up-votes than the one, I would. 7
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2021 Posted October 26, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Teancum said: Wonder away. Do you think people who don't totally buy into your explanations are not sincere? Because I have answered them all 100 times, and sometimes you agree and sometimes you don't. But in a bit I will do the whole ball of wax all over again, as I have time Language and our perceptions are not of "reality" but only what our brains interpret. Nothing we know or experience is independent of our way of seeing it. Yet for all practical or "pragmatic" purposes we have to see our INTERPRETATIONS as if they are "real". Think of colors. One paradigm to explain colors is that they are "real" and yet we also know light of certain wave lengths is INTERPRETED by our brains as "color", but only in the wavelengths useful to us. So is color "real" or "only in our heads"? And of course certain animals can hear more frequencies than we can, see UV light, infrared, etc. But we have devices that enable us to "see" these wavelengths, but do we see them as animals do. Which is "real"? What we see or what they see? Reality is relative to the being experiencing it. What color are gamma rays, beyond our ability to perceive? So if some experience God while others don't, is God real or not? If an animal can see something we cannot, is it "real" or "more real" than what we see? If a bat finds a huge cave through echolocation, an ability we do not have, is it real or only a bat discovery, and only real for bats? Is that only in their Perhaps thinking that over would be a start. What is reality vs what is "in our heads"? But if you could just read the real philosophy, you could learn more, quicker Reality is relative to the perceiver. But worse, then we have language that makes reality even less attached to the cause of perceptions than sense experience. Edited October 26, 2021 by mfbukowski
smtwngrl Posted October 26, 2021 Posted October 26, 2021 On 10/20/2021 at 6:57 PM, Teancum said: Mosiah 3:19: 19 For the anatural bman is an cenemy to God, and has been from the dfall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he eyields to the enticings of the fHoly Spirit, and gputteth off the hnatural man and becometh a isaint through the atonement of Christ Why would God create creatures that are his enemy? He did not create us that way. He created our spirits, and we are his children, and have a divine nature. Thus the scripture, "God created man a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with power and glory." The natural man came later, and is something different. Notice that the scripture you quoted says: "and has been from the fall of Adam" The natural man has to do with our mortality, and the struggle because of mortality. The challenge of mortality is between our body and our spirit. Our spirit is meant to gain control of our body, and not the other way around. But it is not an easy task.
Kenngo1969 Posted October 26, 2021 Posted October 26, 2021 5 hours ago, smtwngrl said: He did not create us that way. He created our spirits, and we are his children, and have a divine nature. Thus the scripture, "God created man a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with power and glory." The natural man came later, and is something different. Notice that the scripture you quoted says: "and has been from the fall of Adam" The natural man has to do with our mortality, and the struggle because of mortality. The challenge of mortality is between our body and our spirit. Our spirit is meant to gain control of our body, and not the other way around. But it is not an easy task. You have to have a minimum of 25 posts for people to upvote you, so head on over to the "Last Movie You Watched" and "Three Word Story" threads in Social Hall so you can accrue them! But I would upvote you, if I could! (Also, you can be downvoted, which I think is pretty stupid, but, not my circus ...) The advantage of this one is no one will be able to take it away from you, so ... +1!! Welcome to the Board!
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2021 Posted October 26, 2021 23 hours ago, let’s roll said: Using mortal eyes to envision eternal peace often results in the idea that eternal peace is devoid of pain and suffering. However, exaltation involves inheriting all that God has and joining Him in His work, and that work includes suffering. He is the father of both the perpetrator and the victim of every evil act; the father of every starving child. He suffers and weeps and is available to succor them all. Our suffering in mortality, however severe, can provide us only a tiny glimpse into the suffering attendant to joining God in doing His work. As we learn not only to endure such suffering, but to endure it well, we can find peace amid suffering, Divine peace, and provide succor to others who are suffering. I specifically avoided mentioning this when I posited that the everlasting burnings of exaltation could be “eternal good pain” for fear of sounding even more blasphemous. Thank you for bringing it up.
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2021 Posted October 26, 2021 (edited) On 10/25/2021 at 10:32 AM, Teancum said: I did not ask that of you. Just want to be sure you recognize this. Plus, you may be very wrong. I think it likely. Ok. But your claim to know that the LDS system is the best way to live, grow, advance and whatever seems to be based on some sort of outside empirical evidence experience does it not? If not please explain. So how is God experiences and how do you define religious experiences? And as I have asked many times, what if yours religious experiences conflict with others religious experiences? I will take a look. Sorry for being a jerk. I will try to answer every question you ask me, though it might take a while before I can do so. I think you sent me a longer post packed with other questions- about omnis etc also- and I cannot now find those posts. Quote But your claim to know that the LDS system is the best way to live, grow, advance and whatever seems to be based on some sort of outside empirical evidence experience does it not? If not please explain. I think I have mentioned before the Didache, a first century Christian writing that is to me, THE first pragmatic writing applied to Christianity. In it it explores the difference between the "Way of Life" and the "Way of Death". it can be seen as an early foreshadowing of social evolution in seeking the best way to live. Peaceful life, more babies who live longer. It's evolution. The way of death is essentially breaking the commandments. If one robs and steals, one will end up in prison. That is not an ideal life. If one causes disturbances with one's neighbors they wil come after you and cause you grief and perhaps worse. If you murder someone, revenge will probably result. Same for adultery etc- it causes grief and perhaps revenge, and perhaps death On the other hand the way of Life - essentially keeping the commandments- leads to a peaceful life of familial love, friendly neighbors, lotsa happy babies and happy families living in harmony. That is a pragmatic explanation why a life of following the commandments leads to a happy life. I have lived both those so I know for myself that the latter is better. And the paradigm that we can become like God is the highest example of this, in keeping one looking toward the goal of further perfection even after one has raised their perfect litle family, it is a process of human improvement to carry one forward- and the belief that one continues to progress is also part of keeping one on the path. The notion that there are rewards after death performs much the same function in human society. Obviously the "way of life " IS also the LDS "covenant path". First century pragmatism restored, and just pragmatically, even if there was no God I believe that treating one's neighbor as one would want to be treated is clearly common sense in having a happy life, and even atheists affirm that. Quote So how is God experiences and how do you define religious experiences? And as I have asked many times, what if yours religious experiences conflict with others religious experiences? Religious experiences are hard to define but I would say that they vary tremendously, and their interpretation like anything in life is SUBJECTIVE as to their meaning. They are a sensation of some idea or emotion coming into your mind/heart which you would not attribute to you thinking it up yourself and has a spiritual (ie about God and morals) context. Can atheists have spiritual experiences? Obviously yes or there would be no believers. There are no believers who have never had doubts. Quote And as I have asked many times, what if yours religious experiences conflict with others religious experiences? As I have answered many many many times, God is our private tutor to lead us back to himself and he takes each of us on from wherever we are to where he wants us to be as a stepping stone. I believe there are many paths leading to the "same place" As I have said many times before, if we are on drugs on skid row living under a bridge and a hopeless atheist, the first path back to Christ FOR US might be a Buddhist in the next tent who teaches us meditation. That is the way we need, to organize our thoughts for that time. That is the path that God may want for us since we are not quite ready for babies in white shirts with no experience of what life is really like, and we would reject immediately. Then after getting our minds in order, God may want us to question what God is, and have questions about how we know there is a God. That could be like an athiest stage of development. I know I went through that- if I had never been an atheist communist I would never have become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I banged my head enough times to know what did NOT work. I was like an Edison of religious experience! Or maybe our first mention of God while in our tent would come from an Evangelical- which is actually a strong possibility because of all the wonderful work that the Salvation Army does. Could God affirm, and give us a testimony that THAT was the way to go? Absolutely! And so our "testimonies" may vary according to what we need to change our lives bit by bit. There are no "conflicting" spiritual experiences, there are only the lesson that will bring us closer to God on a daily basis. Like a scientific investigation, we take on the best paradigm we can find until another comes along. There is no "right or wrong" religious paradigm, there are only ones that work better for a given person at a given time in their lives. The mistake is thinking there IS right or wrong, as long as we are sincerely asking God to lead us to truth, there are only stages of development for each person at every stage. When we are in the celestial kingdom, we will no longer need primary stories. The "Church of the Firstborn" will be quite different - we will be our own prophets. Our "testimonies" will have changed, but even then we will be progressing. Seeing those different views as "conflicting" is like saying that when one is on Highway 123, we should be seeing a gas station and a McDonalds, while we are in the middle of a forest. Obviously we can be on the same road while experiencing different things. You should drive across I 10 if you doubt that. It will take you from the Pacific ocean - literally, from the Santa Monica pier, through Arizona deserts, New Mexico plateaus, Texas deserts and cities, all the way to the Atlantic in Florida. I would definitely call that having different experiences while being on the same path There is no conflict- we are just on different portions of the same road! Edited October 26, 2021 by mfbukowski 4
Olmec Donald Posted October 26, 2021 Posted October 26, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: God is our private tutor to lead us back to himself and he takes each of us on from wherever we are to where he wants us to be as a stepping stone. I believe there are many paths leading to the "same place". ... our "testimonies" may vary according to what we need to change our lives bit by bit. There are no "conflicting" spiritual experiences, there are only the lessons that will bring us closer to God on a daily basis. Like a scientific investigation, we take on the best paradigm we can find until another comes along. There is no "right or wrong" religious paradigm, there are only ones that work better for a given person at a given time in their lives. ... we are just on different portions of the same road! Very well said. This is all great stuff. "In my Father's toolbox are many tools." Okay, that version ended up on the cutting room floor, but this one didn't: "Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God... that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God... every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." (Moroni Chapter 7) Edited October 26, 2021 by Olmec Donald 2
Maidservant Posted October 26, 2021 Posted October 26, 2021 On 10/20/2021 at 5:57 PM, Teancum said: Mosiah 3:19: 19 For the anatural bman is an cenemy to God, and has been from the dfall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he eyields to the enticings of the fHoly Spirit, and gputteth off the hnatural man and becometh a isaint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a jchild, ksubmissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. Why would God create creatures that are his enemy? In Christian thought there are varying ideas on the purpose of creation amongst Christian sects and Mormonism certainly has a unique view. And then there are the philosophies of the Omni's and some LDS thinkers have some interesting ideas on this though LDS scripture seem to tilt towards the more general understanding. I think the omnis play into this. More on this later. But one thought. In LDS thought humans were supposed to fall from grace. Adam and Eve had to fall. Sin had to be introduced into the world. We would all sin so we were destined to become God's enemy. It was planned. This to me some like an insidious plan to create us to have to start as God's enemy. So let's talk about it. I haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if this is a repeat or has been hashed. But it caught my attention because I am in the middle of reading Fiona and Terryl Givens' book All Things New: Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between and they suggest that the scriptural meaning (New Testament) of natural man was not about how we were born nor our base nature but how we find ourselves in the world--the paradigms we are born to and which have bound us away from God. 3
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2021 Posted October 27, 2021 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Maidservant said: I haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if this is a repeat or has been hashed. But it caught my attention because I am in the middle of reading Fiona and Terryl Givens' book All Things New: Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between and they suggest that the scriptural meaning (New Testament) of natural man was not about how we were born nor our base nature but how we find ourselves in the world--the paradigms we are born to and which have bound us away from God. I love those guys! and keeping with the BYU trend toward phenomenology, they do see things as "finding ourselves in the world," and how we navigate our lives. Phenomenologists are first cousins with Pragmatism, and I believe these two paths - really with one viewpoint- figthing against the distinction between relational experiences and non-relational appearances- will be seen as the ONLY intellectual basis for the future growth of the church. Both stress the importance of lived experience over imagined correlations between a model of reality and intellectual descriptions of a reality we cannot possibly in principle experience. Seeing relations instead of gross appearances means we actually think about what cutting down one tree means globally. How can you live in a MODEL of "reality"? That is what science is in the present age, by consiously leaving the humanity out of their human model of "experiences" and counting the blips on a computer screen This is not a movie of life, it is a living breating process that we actually LIVE. Science only gives us a poor imitation- a black and white poorly made sketch of the richness of the human experience. God willing science will catch up. Many philosophers of science get it, as the Givens do- it just needs to get down the the chainsaw wielders who miss the forest due to their fixation on how many trees they need to chop to get their quota! Human life without the relational and spiritual side is not "human" at all! Edited October 27, 2021 by mfbukowski 2
rodheadlee Posted October 27, 2021 Posted October 27, 2021 On 10/24/2021 at 7:48 AM, Teancum said: Or we can use critical thinking and rational thought. You can be meek, humble, patient and full of love while using critical thinking and rational thoughts. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2021 Posted October 27, 2021 On 10/25/2021 at 10:32 AM, Teancum said: I did not ask that of you. Just want to be sure you recognize this. Plus, you may be very wrong. I think it likely. I never said I was "right" OR wrong, for that matter when sure knowledge about these matters is not possible in this life, the best we can do is organize a paradigm that is reasonable and coherent. And your constant desire for sources is misplaced, the idea here is to come up with somewhat new and different ways of seeing the gospel which are still perfectly compatible with more traditional views. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2021 Posted October 27, 2021 On 10/24/2021 at 8:11 AM, Teancum said: How does one rank trials that are an opportunity for growth? Is is growth for so many children to die of starvation and the parents simply have to watch? Is a child that is afflicted with painful cancer an opportunity for that child to grow? Or for their parents to grow as they watch their child due? How about a viscous random shooting? Who grows from that? And again why are some born into the lap of luxury and ease while other are born into abject misery. I can thank God for my abundant blessing yet at the same time know other lack so very much. How did I gain so much favor? Accidents happen in an undetermined universe. Otherwise we would be slaves in Satan's ways.
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2021 Posted October 27, 2021 On 10/23/2021 at 11:31 PM, mfbukowski said: Where was that quote? More tomorrow. Forgot about this. Where was the Nagel quote?
Olmec Donald Posted October 27, 2021 Posted October 27, 2021 5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Forgot about this. Where was the Nagel quote? I did a Google search for quotes by Thomas Nagle, to try to get an idea of how he thinks. That was one quote out of a list of 25, and it's about halfway down this page: https://www.azquotes.com/author/10647-Thomas_Nagel This might be where it comes from: Thomas Nagel (1991). “Mortal Questions : Canto”, p.135, Cambridge University Press
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2021 Posted October 27, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Olmec Donald said: I did a Google search for quotes by Thomas Nagle, to try to get an idea of how he thinks. That was one quote out of a list of 25, and it's about halfway down this page: https://www.azquotes.com/author/10647-Thomas_Nagel This might be where it comes from: Thomas Nagel (1991). “Mortal Questions : Canto”, p.135, Cambridge University Press Thanks. If you are really interested there is his most famous essay called oddly "What is it like to be a bat". Not kidding, will post a link. First wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F#:~:text="What Is It Like to,Nagel's Mortal Questions (1979). And the essay itself. Perhaps one of the most influential. You might have to cut and paste nagel.bat.pdf Edited October 27, 2021 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts