Tacenda Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Sr. Eubank for Apostle! Seriously, she is just plain INCREDIBLE!!! She gives me hope!
Fether Posted February 5, 2022 Author Posted February 5, 2022 4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: Don't judge him on his voice. It is weird. His message has been affirmative in support of the atonement. I agree completely. I do. He is just hard to listen to
Peacefully Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Sr. Eubank for Apostle! Seriously, she is just plain INCREDIBLE!!! Love her, and I took your first line seriously:) 1
Maureen Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, James 1 5 said: I think we are a lot like other Christians,... ...Same Bible, even though we believe it more and better than they do... Wow, that's some statement. Can you give an example on how you (LDS), "believe it more and better" than other Christians? M. Edited February 5, 2022 by Maureen
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: She gives me hope! +1 👍
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 6 minutes ago, Maureen said: Wow, that's some statement. Can you give an example on how you (LDS), "believe it more and better" than other Christians? M. Just look at the Joseph Smith translation. Not very difficult
Maureen Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Just look at the Joseph Smith translation. Not very difficult OK, I can see how believing in the JST is definitely different than what other Christians believe. I'm not sure that "different" means "more and better". I'm still curious into what @James 1 5means by his statement. M. Edited February 5, 2022 by Maureen
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Maureen said: OK, I can see how believing in the JST is definitely different than what other Christians believe. I'm not sure that "different" means "more and better". I'm still curious into what @James 1 5means by his statement. M. I'll get to this more, but your comment seems to show that you don't know what "better" means in this battle of paradigms, and the only way you can define that either way is to figure out what you value in life, and therefore what interpretation is "better" than something else. @James 1 5 I suspect chose that name because that is the scripture that affirms that we need to go to God for wisdom, --not to man --to know what is "better" That seems to be his main point-that we need personal revelation to find out what is "better" in terms of values. So ask God what better means and then you will have your answer. As always, science does not provide definitions of value, just how things work mechanically Science is used to heal people and to build concentration camp ovens to kill, but cannot tell you which is better! Science is value neutral, and that is why we need religion. Yes atheists are moral but don't typically know what a conscience is. You have to go to God for that Edited February 5, 2022 by mfbukowski 1
CA Steve Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 20 hours ago, Fether said: I think these guys are great. Not that I agree with all they have to say, but it is extremely refreshing to hear voices other than academics and 80 year olds talk about church topics. Kwaku is 70% cringe for me, brad is the great equalizer of it all. Brings it all home and adds good substance. I know, right? Who wants to hear well informed people or people called by God talk about the church? 2
Saint Bonaventure Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 I made the mistake of moving from this video to a couple of others on this channel. The one fellow has a penchant for bad mouthing most everybody. I am not in favor of policing speech, but YouTube is, and a couple of those videos probably qualify as inciting hatred for the pope and Catholics.
Fether Posted February 5, 2022 Author Posted February 5, 2022 59 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I know, right? Who wants to hear well informed people or people called by God talk about the church? I think we all do, it’s just nice getting fresh views. I still listen to those opinions 20 times for every one time I listen to them. The difference between the two that matters most is not knowledge, but rather point of view and experience. The people that run our church raised the younger generation, but they don’t know what it is like to grow up in the 90s, 00s or 10s. They don’t really understand what millennials and gen z are experiencing. Not sure where your age sits, but the things they talk about on their show are topics that people their age dealt with growing from the older generations. Poor and sometimes harmful sex ed teachings from the church, pegging all porn users as addicts, shame culture surrounding marriage, having kids and missionary work (or lack of), lack of resources (and sometimes outright denial) for controversial topics, rejection from family of someone chooses not to believe, refusal to talk about difficult topics in church or seminary, LGBTQ issues and suppression of that demographic, etc. Whether these were caused by the church or cultural issues within wards, it doesn’t matter. The people best suited to talk about these are those that were affected by it, which are almost entirely the millennials and gen z. That’s not to say our leaders and academics dont have good insight, they have great incite on it! But there is so much more to be discussed and learned by us who had to deal with these issues. 1
MiserereNobis Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 56 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said: I made the mistake of moving from this video to a couple of others on this channel. The one fellow has a penchant for bad mouthing most everybody. I am not in favor of policing speech, but YouTube is, and a couple of those videos probably qualify as inciting hatred for the pope and Catholics. Some good ol’ fashion Catholic bashing, eh? Whore of Babylon, church of the devil stuff?
Tacenda Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 20 minutes ago, Fether said: I think we all do, it’s just nice getting fresh views. I still listen to those opinions 20 times for every one time I listen to them. The difference between the two that matters most is not knowledge, but rather point of view and experience. The people that run our church raised the younger generation, but they don’t know what it is like to grow up in the 90s, 00s or 10s. They don’t really understand what millennials and gen z are experiencing. Not sure where your age sits, but the things they talk about on their show are topics that people their age dealt with growing from the older generations. Poor and sometimes harmful sex ed teachings from the church, pegging all porn users as addicts, shame culture surrounding marriage, having kids and missionary work (or lack of), lack of resources (and sometimes outright denial) for controversial topics, rejection from family of someone chooses not to believe, refusal to talk about difficult topics in church or seminary, LGBTQ issues and suppression of that demographic, etc. Whether these were caused by the church or cultural issues within wards, it doesn’t matter. The people best suited to talk about these are those that were affected by it, which are almost entirely the millennials and gen z. That’s not to say our leaders and academics dont have good insight, they have great incite on it! But there is so much more to be discussed and learned by us who had to deal with these issues. Wow Fether, I'm impressed.
Fether Posted February 5, 2022 Author Posted February 5, 2022 2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said: inciting hatred for the pope and Catholics. Inciting hatred? Is that so bad that it needs to be censored? Also, they said multiple times that their only complaint is with the catholic leadership and lack of accountability for its deep history of pedophilia, not the people.
Tacenda Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I'll get to this more, but your comment seems to show that you don't know what "better" means in this battle of paradigms, and the only way you can define that either way is to figure out what you value in life, and therefore what interpretation is "better" than something else. @James 1 5 I suspect chose that name because that is the scripture that affirms that we need to go to God for wisdom, --not to man --to know what is "better" That seems to be his main point-that we need personal revelation to find out what is "better" in terms of values. So ask God what better means and then you will have your answer. As always, science does not provide definitions of value, just how things work mechanically Science is used to heal people and to build concentration camp ovens to kill, but cannot tell you which is better! Science is value neutral, and that is why we need religion. Yes atheists are moral but don't typically know what a conscience is. You have to go to God for that I sure like your posts mostly, but the bold has me concerned. I disagree, I believe atheists have a conscience, no doubt about it. Most of us are born with it, and sometimes religions with authoritarian leaders can be a deterrent from that conscience. ETA: Most atheists are probably just theists. They have no idea if there is a God or not. Edited February 5, 2022 by Tacenda
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 5 hours ago, CA Steve said: I know, right? Who wants to hear well informed people or people called by God talk about the church? AND who have spent fifty or more years studying religions and how to become Christlike... of course that does not refer to me, if I was Christlike, I would not have protested on this blatant example of age-ism.
Mike Drop Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Science is value neutral, and that is why we need religion. Yes atheists are moral but don't typically know what a conscience is. Really? There’s lots of good people out there that don’t need religion and they use their conscience everyday just like we do! 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You have to go to God for that No you don’t. And if you believe we do, when do you actually receive a conscience from God? Because I believe a conscience is built in.
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Mike Drop said: Really? There’s lots of good people out there that don’t need religion and they use their conscience everyday just like we do! No you don’t. And if you believe we do, when do you actually receive a conscience from God? Because I believe a conscience is built in. Aha! Of course it is! Glad we agree. Did it evolve? What does it matter? Then this discussion only becomes about whether Christians can believe in evolution! Of course we do/can believe in evolution! I am glad you are so religious. Where did that built in guide to good and evil come from? WHY do we have it? Call it what you like, that Liahona is in all of us. It gives life meaning. If you have meaning in life, or seek it THAT is your religion. Meaning cannot be found thru science Even famous atheist Christopher Hitchens cannot escape it https://youtu.be/WQgbi56FFZY Edited February 5, 2022 by mfbukowski
3DOP Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I sure like your posts mostly, but the bold has me concerned. I disagree, I believe atheists have a conscience, no doubt about it. Most of us are born with it, and sometimes religions with authoritarian leaders can be a deterrent from that conscience. ETA: Most atheists are probably just theists. They have no idea if there is a God or not. I suspect Mark believes, as I do, that everyone has a conscience, but not everyone has a good idea of what a conscience is. Everyone is born with a conscience that will be formed according to different and sometimes conflicting ideas. Recently I heard a story about a couple of Catholic soldiers, who after serving their army commitments, came home and boasted to a friend of mine about the way they obeyed orders to "plant evidence" in Afghanistan to make it appear that some bad guy would seem worse than he really is. Someone in the U.S. Army and the Catholic Church have instilled values in these two young men that are greatly at odds with each other. I am not saying that this is typical of our military. I truly hope not. But it is incompatible with the Catholic faith. We may not treat the worst villain in such a manner. Everyone has a right to their reputation. It is a sin against justice to accuse a villain of something of which he is innocent. The actions for which these soldiers were reportedly proud, if the report I heard is correct, would be despicable. I believe it would be an example of the corruption of a properly formed conscience. It would certainly be an example of how merely having a conscience does not imply that we can excuse everyone who feels a clear conscience about whatever they might do. These soldiers had a clear conscience about doing something evil. Every conscience needs proper formation and maintenance. Edited February 5, 2022 by 3DOP 1
Saint Bonaventure Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 5 hours ago, Fether said: Inciting hatred? Is that so bad that it needs to be censored? Also, they said multiple times that their only complaint is with the catholic leadership and lack of accountability for its deep history of pedophilia, not the people. By YouTube standards, the one man is pretty close. Sometimes he sort of qualifies his statements, and other times he doesn't. The other two seem to be trying to be guardrails.
Saint Bonaventure Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Some good ol’ fashion Catholic bashing, eh? Whore of Babylon, church of the devil stuff? Catholic bashing, for sure, but he isn't focused enough to trot out the church of the devil stuff. If LDS folks understood how much damage the church of the devil bit has done....
MiserereNobis Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 2 hours ago, 3DOP said: I suspect Mark believes, as I do, that everyone has a conscience, but not everyone has a good idea of what a conscience is. Everyone is born with a conscience that will be formed according to different and sometimes conflicting ideas. Recently I heard a story about a couple of Catholic soldiers, who after serving their army commitments, came home and boasted to a friend of mine about the way they obeyed orders to "plant evidence" in Afghanistan to make it appear that some bad guy would seem worse than he really is. Someone in the U.S. Army and the Catholic Church have instilled values in these two young men that are greatly at odds with each other. I am not saying that this is typical of our military. I truly hope not. But it is incompatible with the Catholic faith. We may not treat the worst villain in such a manner. Everyone has a right to their reputation. It is a sin against justice to accuse a villain of something of which he is innocent. The actions for which these soldiers were reportedly proud, if the report I heard is correct, would be despicable. I believe it would be an example of the corruption of a properly formed conscience. It would certainly be an example of how merely having a conscience does not imply that we can excuse everyone who feels a clear conscience about whatever they might do. These soldiers had a clear conscience about doing something evil. Every conscience needs proper formation and maintenance. It's probably not relevant, but this reminded me of the bombing of the Monte Casino abbey in WW2. For those not familiar, the abbey was founded by St. Benedict in 529. The allies bombed it believing the Germans were using it as an observation post (they were not). One Catholic pilot refused to do so and was court-martialed for it. He was following his conscience. Too bad the allies didn't listen to him, since after the abbey was destroyed the Germans did occupy it. The ruins made it a perfectly defensible post, making the battle that much harder. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, 3DOP said: I suspect Mark believes, as I do, that everyone has a conscience, but not everyone has a good idea of what a conscience is. Yep but the differences, imo, are due to linguistic ambiguity. I'm gonna start a thread on this soon, and it will be primarily LDS oriented, about experienced differences and similarities between the Holy Ghost and the conscience/light of Christ, if any. Remember "sensus fidei" - very important in these issues https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/christianity-and-the-laws-of-conscience/sensus-fidei-the-magisterium-and-the-formation-of-conscience/0F658C1880D72D4F0E7608710F7860F0 Edited February 6, 2022 by mfbukowski
JAHS Posted February 6, 2022 Posted February 6, 2022 I think I like the word "form" instead of "appearance". If we worry too much about appearance, we might not concentrate as much as we should on just doing what is right, for fear of what others might think. That what we do might look wrong to others even though we are not doing wrong. "Just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts" (1 Thessalonians 2:4). Most every other Bible translation uses the words "form' or "kind" 1
Tacenda Posted February 6, 2022 Posted February 6, 2022 8 hours ago, Tacenda said: I sure like your posts mostly, but the bold has me concerned. I disagree, I believe atheists have a conscience, no doubt about it. Most of us are born with it, and sometimes religions with authoritarian leaders can be a deterrent from that conscience. ETA: Most atheists are probably just theists. They have no idea if there is a God or not. My post is kinda nuts, unable to edit, I mean't most atheists are not theists.
Recommended Posts