Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Paloma said:

Blue Dreams, I thoroughly appreciate your last post here for all the thoughtfulness you brought into the conversation between Brad and Steve, and for interacting with my comments about it.

I had thought of responding to you section by section (trying to, as Calm gave me a clue as to how to even do that!!).  But I think it would be better just now for me to not chop up the conversation like that but work my way through various topics you raised in your post.  I have them before me here and I'll try to be as clear and concise as possible.

Yes, I like you would have preferred a more equitable back and forth dialogue between Brad and Steve.  I thought they did a good job of neither appearing to have an upper hand even as the event seemed geared toward Brad explaining LDS beliefs.  I am so glad that Brad felt "safe" in that environment as anything less I would have a problem with!

I have the edge of a migraine, so some of this may not flow as I'd like, but I'll try to be succinct. I probably will break this up, because in my current headspace, block posts confuse me a little (really don't recommend migraines...this one isn't event that bad, I just don't trust myself that it will be significantly better tommorow).

4 hours ago, Paloma said:

You mentioned Brad having a less academic and nuanced style than you prefer.  Blue Dreams, I so often think that when I hear my Christian colleagues speak!  I think we're soul sisters!  (And Navidad, if you happen to be reading ... I really like the way you express yourself - often all I could have hoped for and more!)

....

When I was doing my Masters of Theology, I took several courses in Systematic Theology.  That kind of trying to understand God and God's way with people can lend itself to putting everything into boxes and then living out of those boxes, as we bring our best historical and current understanding to subjects like Humanity, Sin, the Trinity, Christology, Salvation, Sanctification, Ecclesiology, etc.  etc. etc.  I am thankful for wise and humble professors who started the courses with warnings about "boxes" and closed systems.  One of my professors said the first day of class:  "We're all filled with biases and heresies.  Let's recognize that and go from there with a spirit of humility."

I also took courses in Biblical Theology which differs from Systematic Theology in that we don't start with categories like the Trinity but we look at Books and passages in the Bible and see what we learn about God through them, not concerned about mysteries and paradoxes to be solved or reconciled but simply see what's there.

You may have something there on soul sisters. I likely would have gravitated to the biblical theology classes since that is the way I most like to read scriptures. I didn't have a name for it, but it's been helpful when exploring varying texts or concepts. Which is probably why I try to recognize where my biases are before I write anything...sometimes explicitly but sometime less so too. At the very least, to keep tabs of them while I'm exploring or responding to something. Since I'm a fairly assertive person, I'm aware that if I'm not careful, my views and over power others without meaning to. 

 

4 hours ago, Paloma said:

When I think of what Steve said throughout the video, most of the time there wasn't enough for me to think deeply about, though I did, as I said, love his Hebrews 1: 1-2 reference.  More on that later! Both you and Tacenda have reacted to Steve's remark about finding the possibility of salvation  after death "scary".  I reacted much the same as you two.  How could you find that scary?!  - though I think that lots of Evangelical Christians would find it so.  And I think that a big part of the reason is that "It doesn't fit my theology" ..."It's outside the bounds".  I fully recognize that 'comfortable' way of thinking about Christian faith in the Protestant Evangelical community.  When people think they "know", there's comfort (even the potential for smugness and judgmentalism) in that.  ...

Back to Steve ... I'm wondering if he's uncomfortable with the unknown or with the thought that his assumptions/beliefs could be shaken.  I think that a lot of nonLDS Christians wouId feel that their whole basis for preaching and evangelizing would be questioned if the possibility of second chances after death were entertained.  I can't know and don't want to speculate but I can say for myself that I love to look at everything with an open mind.  (One professor wondered how open I could be without losing myself but I am pretty grounded!)

I find nothing scary about thinking God's love, mercy and compassion extend beyond a cutoff point at death!  And I believe that the closer I get to the heart of God, the more I sense His heart is far more inclusive, loving and merciful than I could imagine. (This is somewhat similar to your own statement, Blue Dreams, that "the more I've grown in my own faith the less anxious I've come with people's spiritual development and bringing people to Christ ...tied more and more with a transformation via God's love in my life".)

 The way you describe that confidence really resonates with me. I think that's what I saw in some of my experiences with the more outwardly "confident" protestant evangelical community members I'd often run into. On the one hand they were likely so outwardly outspoken because of this passionate confidence. On the other hand it most certainly led to what you describe that I just found as prideful. It was also at times weird because a number would likely fall into that systemic theology orientation. They'd insist on a biblical basis...but this basis was then based on other writers/pastors interpretting said biblical theology. Which is fine, but it was never acknowledged as a bias, more as a certainty that these people were the ones that really got it...often via the person's own measurement/litmus test of a good church or ideology. it felt a little circular to me in reasoning...it still does when I see it. 

To be fair, I see that also in my own faith community. Brad seems to be an example of this to some degree, but more close to home I struggle with that in some of the stake leadership I currently have. Where the certainty and more program oriented viewpoints can often rub me the wrong way. In some ways I can see the draw. The world is a lot clearer, easier to categorize, and ones actions simple and almost formulaic. There's likely comfort in that. But I honestly prefer a messier world, particulary when I'm called to address the less easy parts of humanity regularly. I have that same wondering of how do they then take in the unknowns. I've seen some who are generally uncomfortable with foggy areas. With others...I think it's sometimes hard to even really take in the fogginess or why it's complex in the first place when I've run into those who lean towards more categorical, black and white, viewpoints. It tends to drift still into those boxes and what doesn't fully fit doesn't get fully explored. Which is hard for me to grasp. Where you described a core of openness, my core runs on its cousin curiosity. If there's something I don't understand or feel a pull to better get, I must know more. And at as many angles as I can take in if possible. Sometimes its just a natural urge, other times it takes on a spiritual push...

 

4 hours ago, Paloma said:

You talked about the core of you being divine in God (and I'm sorry I'm jumping ahead in your post here, and leaving out a lot of wonderful things you said).  I also feel this in some way - otherwise, what could it possibly mean that I have God's Spirit in me.  'He in me and I in Him' is very much what I believe, along with all or most nonLDS Christians.  I think many of us don't think about this nearly enough - probably because we live in a materialistic world where we don't understand spiritual reality very well.  (I learned a lot during my many years in Africa, because Africans are so much wiser and so rich in experience when it comes to the spiritual realm.) 

On the bold, I think I would describe that differently. I would sat that the core of me is divine to God and through God my divine  potential is fully realized. Two examples to illustrate that. When I was young I had this fear that I wouldn't "be the same person" if I became more like what God wanted of me. It was a bit of an irrational fear, though maybe it was tied by seeing a certain type of leader/member in my own faith community that often fit a certain mold...a mold I didn't fit. I wasn't really down with becoming that either. Luckily I soon caught on was that the more I trusted God, the more me I truly became...less hindered by the things that had hindered my capacities either through just being in a messy world or adopting some messy behaviors/attitudes for myself. The second is what I mentioned above with my curiosity. As I mentioned, at my core I am a naturally curious person. I have been since forever and always will be. That natural trait then gets amplified when on a spiritual journey or task. Its like picturing rough ore being worked and purified. In order for it to be of high value, something innately beautiful had to be there in the first place.  

That's a core belief of mine. I see and assume that with everyone I meet, Lds, non-lds christian, non-christian alike. I personally believe it's why I'm good with my job. When I meet a new person I assume that in them there is this divine goodness...even if they've lost track of it, aren't read or willing to fully access it, or have buried it in their poor coping habits. I know it's there and that changes how I interact with them. 

 

4 hours ago, Paloma said:

On to Hebrews 1: 1-2.  I'm so glad you picked up on what I said.  I really love the book of Hebrews because it's all about how Jesus has fulfilled every different "way" of saving grace and access to Himself that God has provided through human history.  Hebrews shows that Jesus is greater than angels, greater than Moses and the prophets, greater than Aaron and Levi and the whole priestly  sacrificial system, "having made sacrifice for sin and sat down at the right hand of God" Heb. 1:3.  The implication here is that Jesus, "heir" to the throne is now reigning with the Father.  So that's where I see Jesus "supremely alone as Prophet, Priest and King".  Over and over in the Book of Hebrews, the writer talks about Jesus accomplishing what He did "once and for all".  I see this theme throughout the Bible.  In the New Testament, I see it most clearly in Colossians and Hebrews.  The phrase means to me that there is no one to come after Jesus because all of salvation history was leading up to Him and He has fulfilled all of the roles - prophet (God's mouthpiece to and for us); priest (our conduit to God whereby God sees our repentance, obedience and longing for Him) and King (He holds all authority).

I do see Him inviting us into these roles as He gives us spiritual gifts - part of "He in us and we in Him".  

That's all for now, as I need to prepare for a Healing Care course I'm helping to facilitate in just over an hour.

I don't know why I find this so interesting, but I do. I too really love Hebrews...it's also on my list of favorite book of scripture in the bible. But I definitely get something different from it. Adding to was BB said, I think Heb 1:1-2 is balanced out with other verses in and out of hebrews that shows a continuation of an organized structure and commission...such as Heb 3:1 where it talks about Jesus the apostle. Obviously from context that doesn't mean apostles ended with him just because he is the head of said order. Which I think is likely similar to what you mentions with giving us spiritual gifts, just that my view takes a more structured or ordered assertion to that. What I love about Heb is the language that I see directly tying to the temple and what the temple is about. For LDS the new covenant is found a lot in the temple, taking the space the covenantal relationship found in the OT temples were in. Instead of sacrificial animals, Christ is the center of everything in there and are wills and concerns/weaknesses are what we give at His alters. To me it's fulfilling the "shadow" of the previous isralite order, by centering said order on christ, and reorienting ordinances and covenants around this last great sacrifice and helping us enter a higher way. Which I get the sense we probably wouldn't disagree...but what that means and looks like is where we'd probably diverge the most. 

 

I hope the course went well! I'll be out for the night but wish you well. 

With luv,

BD 

[Paloma]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thank you for explaining this better Paloma.  I was also confused by Steve's explanation on that video.

I think that one reason that LDS wouldn't understand that verse in Hebrews the same way is because we believe the bolded was just as true about Christ during the OT as during the NT, or after the Atonement had been completed.  

So our need for prophets (or rather, God's use of prophets), in our belief, is not tied to Christ fulfilling His role as the Messiah or Savior.  

Just want to clarify that we nonLDS Christians believe as you do that everything in Hebrews 1: 1-3 was just as true about Christ during the OT as in the NT and after the Atonement was completed.  He was the Saviour of the world and Prophet, Priest and King before the foundation of the world and throughout eternity.  

I think we're in agreement here or perhaps there's some disconnect that I'm not quite comprehending.  And I think that I may not have expressed what I intended clearly enough ... oh for the luxury of long, deep, drawn out conversations that escape our grasp here and now!  

 

[Paloma]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

She's such a nice human being who thinks for herself!  Those traits are hard to find.   I know I think for myself, but I wish I could learn to be kind.  When you think for yourself the tendency I think is to start thinking that whatever you yourself think is the "only true way" to think so of course you are always right and others are always wrong!

Getting both together is something I really like about @Tacenda!

Your words that I bolded above are some of the most beautiful words I've seen on this board.  Kindness is so key to our humanity - in both gentle and powerful ways.  I think of that expression - "People will forget what we told them but they'll always remember how we made them feel."

I'm remembering a time when an African pastor's wife and I were having a conversation in my home on the mission station where we lived.  She was evidently troubled and I asked her what was on her heart.  She said to me that a certain missionary sister among us was not a Christian.  When I asked her to explain further, she said that this particular woman was not kind and loving.  (Sure enough, this woman missionary had a quick temper and could be dismissive of people who angered her, though she repented and tried to make amends afterwards.)

I didn't know what to say because all I could think of were the words in John 13: 35:  "By this everyone will know if you are my disciples, that you love one another". 

I'm sure our conversation continued and I tried to intercede for this fellow missionary ... but I was taken aback.  And I was even more aware than I'd been before, of how people are always watching and evaluating our faith by how we act - and by how we make them feel.

(Mfbukowski, how beautifully kind you are in this post I quoted above!)

Edited February 23, 2022 by Paloma

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Paloma said:

Your words that I bolded above are some of the most beautiful words I've seen on this board.  Kindness is so key to our humanity - in both gentle and powerful ways.  I think of that expression - "People will forget what we told them but they'll always remember how we made them feel."

I'm remembering a time when an African pastor's wife and I were having a conversation in my home on the mission station where we lived.  She was evidently troubled and I asked her what was on her heart.  She said to me that a certain missionary sister among us was not a Christian.  When I asked her to explain further, she said that this particular woman was not kind and loving.  (Sure enough, this woman missionary had a quick temper and could be dismissive of people who angered her, though she repented and tried to make amends afterwards.)

I didn't know what to say because all I could think of were the words in John 13: 35:  "By this everyone will know if you are my disciples, that you love one another". 

I'm sure our conversation continued and I tried to intercede for this fellow missionary ... but I was taken aback.  And I was even more aware than I'd been before, of how people are always watching and evaluating our faith by how we act - and by how we make them feel.

(Mfbukowski, how beautifully kind you are in this post I quoted above!)

Thank you so much- I obviously need to work on this.  

[Nofear]

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Technically everything experienced on earth is filtered through the mind, including physical vision. Personally I believe strongly that one sees godly things through "spiritual eyes" as described in moses 1:1. And there's a spectrum of experiences that one can have through seeing things spiritual, including visions.

"All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all; and those revelations which will save our spirits will save our bodies." -- Joseph Smith

The way I interpret this comment is that the Holy Ghost does not directly speak to our physical body and mind but to our spirit body and mind. How the physical body will respond to a stimulus of the spirit body seems to have some degree of variation (e.g. burning bosom, calming sensation, endorphin rush, etc.). Though, if I recall correctly, the context of Joseph's comment was in relation to the work for the dead and that can color one's interpretation. Nonetheless, my interpretation seems to me to be good.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Nofear said:

You can play a semantic question on what to "know" means. Since it seems likely you and mfbukowski mean different things when you say "know" ... you might have to hash that out first.

Yes true. He and I go round and round about this.

16 hours ago, Nofear said:

 

It is not, however, a semantic question to say question to say what we experience is in our mind. Can we "know" anything that we do not experience? If you say, no, than everything we know is mental. If you say yes, than one can argue that we can "know" things that aren't in our mind.

I guess I am persuaded but your point.  We cannot not know anything but what we process in our mind. This is why I think it is dangerous to claim to know something is the best path, truth, etc based on an internal metaphysical experience. 

[MrShorty]

On 2/21/2022 at 2:02 PM, CV75 said:

This is why we do not hear anyone say, for example, believably and with ecclesiastical common consent, “The Holy Ghost has borne witness to me that same-sex marriage is an eternal principle.” Prophets will not say it, either, because they will only proclaim the Father’s requirements for exaltation in the celestial kingdom, and watch and warn against teachings and practices to the contrary.

You're probably right, but is that because we currently have a complete and accurate understanding of the requirements for exaltation, or because, as a kind of "self-fullfilling prophecy", we squeeze out of the Church those who would make such a statement? It should be no secret that LGBT+ issues are a common reason cited by those who leave the Church (CFR -- the Next Mormon's Survey and David Ostler's Bridges I expect there are others). Many of these would and do make such a statement, but, as you say, they don't count towards "ecclesiastical common consent" because they left the Church.

The priesthood and temple ban was perpetuated in part because we could not see our own blind spots and false traditions regarding race. Are we certain we are not perpetuating blind spots and false traditions when we say that this cannot happen?

[Paloma]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

...

On the bold, I think I would describe that differently. I would sat that the core of me is divine to God and through God my divine  potential is fully realized. Two examples to illustrate that. When I was young I had this fear that I wouldn't "be the same person" if I became more like what God wanted of me. It was a bit of an irrational fear, though maybe it was tied by seeing a certain type of leader/member in my own faith community that often fit a certain mold...a mold I didn't fit. I wasn't really down with becoming that either. Luckily I soon caught on was that the more I trusted God, the more me I truly became...less hindered by the things that had hindered my capacities either through just being in a messy world or adopting some messy behaviors/attitudes for myself. The second is what I mentioned above with my curiosity. As I mentioned, at my core I am a naturally curious person. I have been since forever and always will be. That natural trait then gets amplified when on a spiritual journey or task. Its like picturing rough ore being worked and purified. In order for it to be of high value, something innately beautiful had to be there in the first place.  

That's a core belief of mine. I see and assume that with everyone I meet, Lds, non-lds christian, non-christian alike. I personally believe it's why I'm good with my job. When I meet a new person I assume that in them there is this divine goodness...even if they've lost track of it, aren't read or willing to fully access it, or have buried it in their poor coping habits. I know it's there and that changes how I interact with them. 

...

With luv,

BD 

Blue Dreams, thanks for this clarification  (I like to understand correctly!  ...nuances, right?) where I said "the core of you being divine in God" and you explain that it's more "to God and through God my (ie your) divine potential is fully realized."  I am so interested in how you describe this and resonate a lot with what you say.  I love how you say "The more I trusted God, the more me I truly became".  Yes!  I so identify with this!

I also love what you say about curiosity and being a naturally curious person at your core.  I identify with that a lot too!  You express yourself so beautifully as you look within yourself and then describe what's there.  I'm in awe of your way with words and ability to create pictures for others to understand.

I love what you say about bringing your innate curiosity to your job.  I can only imagine how safe and valued everyone must feel in your accepting, non-anxious presence.  And to see the divine goodness in everyone ... that's something I aspire to as well.  It's one thing to have that inclination and another to have the aptitude and skill to work with people and help them access the goodness and potential for healing within - and I think you have that in spades!

I love this quote from C. S. Lewis in The Weight of Glory that's somewhat relevant here:  

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.”

 

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes true. He and I go round and round about this.

I guess I am persuaded but your point.  We cannot not know anything but what we process in our mind. This is why I think it is dangerous to claim to know something is the best path, truth, etc based on an internal metaphysical experience. 

It’s likely the only reason why you are persuaded by his point is because it plays into a way of thinking that negates the testimony of prophets that it is indeed possible for those who possess the Spirit of God to know for certain that the things of God are real and true. And it must be understood that until the natural man puts off the fallen nature, a state of existence that is utterly blind to the things of God, and puts on the spiritual nature of the regenerated man through faith in Christ and his atonement, the things of the Spirit, and the knowledge of eternal truth derived therefrom, will forever remain beyond the natural man’s grasp.

The true things of God’s kingdom will forever remain foolishness to the natural man because the things of God are utterly beyond what a mind uninspired by the Spirit of God is capable of comprehending. But if it’s any consolation, this is exactly how God ordered this present creation and it’s as natural for the natural man to find the things of God to be foolishness as it is for a young child to fear the dark. It’s going to be a never ending exercise in frustration for any natural man to even begin to understand the workings of a mind that has been transformed and enlightened by Holy Ghost. For the natural man, nothing but confusion and frustration lie ahead.
 

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)

Edited February 23, 2022 by teddyaware

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It’s likely the only reason why you are persuaded by his point is because it plays into a way of thinking that negates the testimony of prophets that it is indeed possible for those who possess the Spirit of God to know for certain that the things of God are real and true. And it must be understood that until the natural man puts off the fallen nature, a state of existence that is utterly blind to the things of God, and puts on the spiritual nature of the regenerated man through faith in Christ and his atonement, the things of the Spirit, and the knowledge of eternal truth derived therefrom, will forever remain beyond the natural man’s grasp.

The true things of God’s kingdom will forever remain foolishness to the natural man because the things of God are utterly beyond what a mind uninspired by the Spirit of God is capable of comprehending. But if it’s any consolation, this is exactly how God ordered this present creation and it’s as natural for the natural man to find the things of God to be foolishness as it is for a young child to fear the dark. It’s going to be a never ending exercise in frustration for any natural man to even begin to understand the workings of a mind that has been transformed and enlightened by Holy Ghost. For the natural man, nothing but confusion and frustration lie ahead.
 

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)

THank you Abinidi.  Must be wonderful to be so righteous and pious.  😏😏🙄  These are great mind control as well as stifling  of critical thinking  "scriptures" as well.  You are just more spiritual.  I am just a scummy natural man and not in tune so I just cannot understand.  See how that works well for you?

[ttribe]

27 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It’s likely the only reason why you are persuaded by his point is because it plays into a way of thinking that negates the testimony of prophets that it is indeed possible for those who possess the Spirit of God to know for certain that the things of God are real and true. And it must be understood that until the natural man puts off the fallen nature, a state of existence that is utterly blind to the things of God, and puts on the spiritual nature of the regenerated man through faith in Christ and his atonement, the things of the Spirit, and the knowledge of eternal truth derived therefrom, will forever remain beyond the natural man’s grasp.

The true things of God’s kingdom will forever remain foolishness to the natural man because the things of God are utterly beyond what a mind uninspired by the Spirit of God is capable of comprehending. But if it’s any consolation, this is exactly how God ordered this present creation and it’s as natural for the natural man to find the things of God to be foolishness as it is for a young child to fear the dark. It’s going to be a never ending exercise in frustration for any natural man to even begin to understand the workings of a mind that has been transformed and enlightened by Holy Ghost. For the natural man, nothing but confusion and frustration lie ahead.
 

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)

Seriously...do you interact with people like this in real life?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I guess I am persuaded but your point.  We cannot not know anything but what we process in our mind. This is why I think it is dangerous to claim to know something is the best path, truth, etc based on an internal metaphysical experience. 

Great, as I see it, you could be half way there.

But if we realize that EVERYTHING we process is filtered through  the mind there is nothing to fear because there IS NOTHING ELSE, no "best way" but what is ALSO filtered through the mind!!

For all PRACTICAL purposes, what is filtered through the mind IS the only reality we know, and no way we can show that our thoughts "correspond" to some other reality we CANNOT EXPERIENCE!!

So the illusion is believing in a reality we by definition CANNOT KNOW!! , 

THAT is the "metaphysical belief," a belief in a world you CANNOT know, a world we cannot experience.

THAT is the illusion!

That's why all Pragmatists are against metaphysics- belief in what CANNOT be directly experienced.

So the real world is what resides in your heart, as well as in your logical side

True empiricism must include both, and it is a fact that people experience religious experiences daily

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, Paloma said:

Tacenda, I for one always appreciate people's honest expression of what they think.  I tend to think that Christians, of all people, should be able to handle that!  Certainly, I think God handles it just fine.  I'm sure He's not insecure!  And having said that, I'm perfectly comfortable with people saying "I don't think I even believe in God" or "I think your belief in God is ridiculous".  I get it ... I could easily think that myself, but it just happens I'm me seeing things as I do ... and that's okay too.

You are a breath of fresh air! 😀

You are the fresh air, for all of us. 🤗

I needed to really think where I'm at right now in my faith of the Savior. I use to have a faith in Jesus, that I believe now was very shallow, in that I just accepted what I was told growing up. I even had a picture of Him in each of my children's rooms growing up. I still have one on my wall that I wake up to. 

Now I finally get how important the scripture about having faith like the mustard seed is and how encouraging it is. When I go to the internet and look up 'mustard seed' I see how very small that is, so that gives one hope if that's all they have for the time being. Funny or not funny, I never even gave that scripture a second thought until recently.

I have a friend that saw Jesus when she was involved in a car accident and had a NDE and that gives me hope always. At first in my journey of a faith crisis, I started listening to non LDS preachers and I liked what they had to say until they ever talked about hell, or gays. A former LDS man, he's my insurance agent, really wants me to go to the Bible church he attends now. I would in a heartbeat, until I heard him say how he believes what the Bible says about gays. That turns me in the other direction for now, searching for faith still.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tacenda

[Paloma]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You are the fresh air, for all of us. 🤗

I needed to really think where I'm at right now in my faith of the Savior. I use to have a faith in Jesus, that I believe now was very shallow, in that I just accepted what I was told growing up. I even had a picture of Him in each of my children's rooms growing up. I still have one on my wall that I wake up to. 

Now I finally get how important the scripture about having faith like the mustard seed is and how encouraging it is. When I go to the internet and look up 'mustard seed' I see how very small that is, so that gives one hope if that's all they have for the time being. Funny or not funny, I never even gave that scripture a second thought until recently.

I have a friend that saw Jesus when she was involved in a car accident and had a NDE and that gives me hope always. At first in my journey of a faith crisis, I started listening to non LDS preachers and I liked what they had to say until they ever talked about hell, or gays. A former LDS man, he's my insurance agent, really wants me to go to the Bible church he attends now. I would in a heartbeat, until I heard him say how he believes what the Bible says about gays. That turns me in the other direction for now, searching for faith still.

Tacenda, thank you!

And I liked hearing what you said about "mustard seed faith".  I tend to think that God is thrilled with whatever we're able to offer at any time.  

I've been so interested in hearing you talk about your spiritual journey and sometimes I think that being in a state of watching and waiting (in a liminal state) is a good place to be - especially for someone like you who is so honest and full of integrity about being your authentic self.

I understand what a turnoff it can be to hear teaching and preaching that excludes and discriminates and marginalizes and frightens.  It can be so strident and ugly and can even sound hateful!)  I want to say "Don't let people sway your belief in God" - but I realize how that can sound so wrong.  What are people seeking God or open to the possibility of His reality supposed to do?  What are people looking for a reason to believe or not believe supposed to do?  Aren't these Christian teachers and preachers representing God?  I think it's the most natural thing for all of us to be positively or negatively influenced by people - especially those who claim to speak for God.

This all gives me a big heartache.  I don't want to be making excuses for people - for Christian leaders - saying they're "all too human" and "full of biases" - even if that's the truth!  But then I think about my own all too real failings and my own biases.  And then I do know that people who've been on this Christian path for a long time (I'm 75!) can be and absolutely are so messed up!

Edited February 23, 2022 by Paloma

[Tacenda]

59 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Tacenda, thank you!

And I liked hearing what you said about "mustard seed faith".  I tend to think that God is thrilled with whatever we're able to offer at any time.  

I've been so interested in hearing you talk about your spiritual journey and sometimes I think that being in a state of watching and waiting (in a liminal state) is a good place to be - especially for someone like you who is so honest and full of integrity about being your authentic self.

I understand what a turnoff it can be to hear teaching and preaching that excludes and discriminates and marginalizes and frightens.  It can be so strident and ugly and can even sound hateful!)  I want to say "Don't let people sway your belief in God" - but I realize how that can sound so wrong.  What are people seeking God or open to the possibility of His reality supposed to do?  What are people looking for a reason to believe or not believe supposed to do?  Aren't these Christian teachers and preachers representing God?  I think it's the most natural thing for all of us to be positively or negatively influenced by people - especially those who claim to speak for God.

This all gives me a big heartache.  I don't want to be making excuses for people - for Christian leaders - saying they're "all too human" and "full of biases" - even if that's the truth!  But then I think about my own all too real failings and my own biases.  And then I do know that people who've been on this Christian path for a long time (I'm 75!) can be and absolutely are so messed up!

You're not messed up at all, your spirit that comes through these posts tell me you're not! 

I looked up a video and this one came up, I'm glad I opened and watched. Worth the few minutes to watch. And I'm not too far behind you in age, turned 60 in December.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/22/2022 at 2:03 PM, Teancum said:

No everything I know is not in my mind. I know things that are outside my physical body.

Ok. So?

Dreams come from your mind.

Yet we don't see things the same way but you think the way you see things is the best way. Better than those who based on their mind and experience think they have the best way.  Yet you refuse to acknowledge how problematic this is.

Dumb.

The dumb drawing was one of Wittgenstein's most important analogies.  I don't think that Wittgenstein was dumb.

I'm tired of going back and forth on this stuff - if you don;t see it, you don't see it, there's not much I can do.   It would be nice if you offered a decent criticism but I have not seen that yet- just things like "dumb"

Yes it IS problematic when one cannot even see that there are more than one way to see reality.   Not much I can do.

So one more shot at the easiest Rorty stuff I can find- after all he is supposed to be the most "lucid" and easy to understand philosopher there is.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html

Quote

 

Stanford Report, April 13, 2005

Philosopher Richard Rorty asserts notion of mind/body distinction is false

BY BARBARA PALMER

L.A. Cicero

Richard Rorty, a philosopher and professor of comparative literature, said that the use of visual perception as a metaphor for knowledge led to a picture of an inner space, a "Cartesian theater," inhabited by things called ideas, impressions and mental representations, which led to "bad" questions, such as, "What is the relationship between what's out there and what's in here such that we can know what's really out there?"

At an April 7 forum hosted by the Symbolic Systems Program, philosopher Richard Rorty, who teaches in the Department of Comparative Literature, posed the question, "Is there a problem about the relation between the mind and the brain?"

His short answer—delivered in the course of a talk that traced the branching paths of modern analytic philosophy, critiqued the usefulness of comparing human neurons to silicon chips and pronounced metaphysics and epistemology to be "bad developments"—is no.

"How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?" Rorty asked the approximately 75 students and faculty assembled in a Sloan Hall lecture room. In part, because both Plato and Aristotle used visual perception as a model for talking about knowledge as something outside that is realized inside, he said.

Because you can look at something, close your eyes and have a memory image of it, it makes sense to say, "It used to be out there, but now it is in here, too," when talking about visual perception, Rorty said. But, he continued, the use of visual perception as a metaphor for knowledge led to a picture of an inner space—a "Cartesian theater"—inhabited by things called ideas, impressions and mental representations. This led to "bad" questions such as, "What is the relationship between what's out there and what's in here such that we can know what's really out there?" he said.

If we hadn't tried to use visual perception as a model for knowledge, we wouldn't have been saddled with the problem of inside versus outside, Rorty said. "This would have been all to the good because we wouldn't have had most of the problems of modern philosophy—or half the problems of ancient philosophy."

As he talked, Rorty gently paced at the front of the room and spoke with the precision and clarity that have earned him praise as an "ultra-lucid" philosopher.

Both metaphysics and epistemology could have been avoided had we thought of knowledge as a social skill, he said. "The only question about the nature of the mind is the question, 'How did human beings acquire an ability that no other organism has; namely, the ability to use language?'"

It is hopeless to look for a sort of "proto-operating system" out of which the linguistic system is generated, he said. It was acquired not through the possession of a language faculty or "module," but because at some point in prehistory, our ancestors got into the habit of pursuing projects of social cooperation by making marks and noises at each other so as to organize themselves, he said. "That turned out to be a fruitful survival mechanism." Eventually our ancestors developed social norms—such as if you grunted "p" you had to grunt "q," or else explain why you didn't grunt "q"—which we call following the laws of logic and making valid inferences, he added.

There was doubtless a genetic mutation somewhere in the background that allowed this neat adaptive trick, he said. But "once that you've seen that a certain neurological twist was necessary to get the process of using marks and noises instead of force as methods of enforcing social cooperation, you have given the only answer that there is to be given to the question, 'What is the relation between the mind and the rest of nature?'"

The "mind" simply is the ability to engage in linguistic behavior, he said. "If you can talk about things, you can also think about things. But you don't talk about things because you have first thought about things. You didn't have any thoughts before you had language to think the thoughts with."

Rorty places himself in the company of pragmatic philosophers who see the main task of philosophy to be to dissolve problems rather than to go to work solving them, he said. Philosophical problems are caused by language games—about religion, science, assignment of moral responsibility, etc.—getting in each other's way, he said.

"There isn't a problem about getting the subject matter of these language games right, there is just the problem of letting the people who use the various language games get along with one another," he said.

Audience members were quick to question Rorty's assertions.

"My job as a scientist is to match my ideas in my head with what's out there," said one. "As a scientist, I'm addicted to thinking there is some reality out there that's really real."

The metaphysical question the Greeks "burdened" us with—Which among the things we talk about, among our intentional objects, are real objects?—"is a question that nobody has ever found any practical use for," Rorty said.

"In the 18th century it was dubious whether we could have a secular culture and make it work. It turned out we could," Rorty said. "The pragmatists suggest we could drop correspondence to reality and still have a viable kind of culture. We'll see."

 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Paloma]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You're not messed up at all, your spirit that comes through these posts tell me you're not! 

I looked up a video and this one came up, I'm glad I opened and watched. Worth the few minutes to watch. And I'm not too far behind you in age, turned 60 in December.

 

Tacenda, I watched this video and agree it's worth watching!  Lots to think about.  There's a lot there in terms of how inclusive we can be while holding on to what we ourselves believe to be true.  I like that Tim Keller said the important thing is how we treat each other.  I also liked his short discussion on being self-centred vs. God-centred.  

It's always good to see thoughtful, respectful dialogue like this between people who have differences but work hard at understanding each other.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The dumb drawing was one of Wittgenstein's most important analogies.  I don't think that Wittgenstein was dumb.

Smart people can do dumb things. It's a drawing. I see both a rabbit and a duck.  Same with the old and young woman drawing.  Maybe dumb is the wrong word.  But I do not find it compelling.

 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm tired of going back and forth on this stuff - if you don;t see it, you don't see it, there's not much I can do. 

I see some of it.  But view it as extremely subjective.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 It would be nice if you offered a decent criticism but I have not seen that yet- just things like "dumb"

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes it IS problematic when one cannot even see that there are more than one way to see reality.   Not much I can do.

I have offered criticism and you seem as unable to comprehend my points as you think I do yours. I have offered many comments more than dumb.  I agree that there are more than one way to see reality.  This is why I think it is totally an unreliable way to come to the conclusion the LDS Church is God's top notch way. Why is your experiences in your reality more valid than mine or others who think they have a better way. It really is seems simple.  If you say live and stay true to your reality and you will be fine with God if there is a God then great.  But I see you saying your reality and conclusions about God, his church and the afterlife are the best. This is where we part ways.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So one more shot at the easiest Rorty stuff I can find- after all he is supposed to be the most "lucid" and easy to understand philosopher there is.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html

 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Smart people can do dumb things. It's a drawing. I see both a rabbit and a duck.  Same with the old and young woman drawing.  Maybe dumb is the wrong word.  But I do not find it compelling.

 

I see some of it.  But view it as extremely subjective.

I have offered criticism and you seem as unable to comprehend my points as you think I do yours. I have offered many comments more than dumb.  I agree that there are more than one way to see reality.  This is why I think it is totally an unreliable way to come to the conclusion the LDS Church is God's top notch way. Why is your experiences in your reality more valid than mine or others who think they have a better way. It really is seems simple.  If you say live and stay true to your reality and you will be fine with God if there is a God then great.  But I see you saying your reality and conclusions about God, his church and the afterlife are the best. This is where we part ways.

 

Omigosh!

You are missing the point while agreeing with me whole heartedly!!!!!!

That is the entire point- that belief in God is just as valid, or justified, as not believing in God.

It is as much a rabbit as it is a duck, and no one can justify one conclusion over the other!!!  That has been our whole discussion over the last few YEARS!!

We have not even gotten to WHY one is "better" than the other, but the evidence is right in front of you as well!!

You are personally following an ethical path in your life, and are not, from what I can tell, a serial killer etc., you seem to be a perfectly upstanding citizen, with ethics.

Before the gospel of Jesus Christ, people were being tortured and murdered for the amusement of others.

Why do today's atheists find that as reprehensible as do church-goers?

Because following the golden rule leads to a BETTER life, more peaceful, BETTER for raising children, etc!  Living by law with freedom of speech, and other rules is simply BETTER.

How did such a culture evolve?

By following the gospel of Christ, I believe.

But perhaps it just "evolved".

IT DOESN'T MATTER BUT UNQUESTIONABLY LIFE IN A PEACEFUL SOCIETY IS BETTER THAN WORRYING ABOUT BEING KILLED FOR SOMEONE'S AMUSEMENT.

God or no God, Christian ethics have changed the world pragmatically.

We live better than the Romans or Greeks,  without emperors killing each other for power, emulating their squabbling "gods"

Now we worship the Ideal Human, the Christ.

Pragmatically the golden rule wins.

Whether or not such a being "actually exists", whatever that means, the IDEA is a great influence for good.  Kant came to the same conclusion by logic alone.

It is a fully justified position to believe it is the BEST view, and that the beliefs of Mormonism make it BETTER.

With a Human God, humanism becomes theology, pragmatically.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But view it as extremely subjective.

Of course because values cannot be OBJECTIVE. Science as we know it takes no stand on values and purposes, and is USELESS for this purpose.

No more

I can't continue this discussion. It is a waste of time

 

[IAMBROCCOLI]

Tom Kimball was a close friend for many years. There were no signs of his crimes. He could blame it on his crazy, (which he always talked about), or prior abuse; but all in all he betrayed his family and his friends. I personally condemn him to hell. I hope he suffers for eternity.

[CV75]

Whatever happened with Elder Wilcox -- has the tenor his youth presentations changed? Did he have a conversation with BYU students wanting to incite change?

[JustAnAustralian]

On 4/17/2022 at 5:15 AM, CV75 said:

Whatever happened with Elder Wilcox -- has the tenor his youth presentations changed? Did he have a conversation with BYU students wanting to incite change?

News cycle has moved on. Chances are the next we hear of him will be when the General YM Presidency cycles out.

Edited April 18, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[teddyaware]

On 4/15/2022 at 6:48 PM, IAMBROCCOLI said:

Tom Kimball was a close friend for many years. There were no signs of his crimes. He could blame it on his crazy, (which he always talked about), or prior abuse; but all in all he betrayed his family and his friends. I personally condemn him to hell. I hope he suffers for eternity.

Now that’s what I like to see! Someone who has the courage and perfect righteousness to be able to take a seat on the throne of God and boldly condemn someone they don’t like to an eternity in hell with the sons of perdition! Cool!!!

Edited April 18, 2022 by teddyaware

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Now that’s what I like to see! Someone who has the courage and perfect righteousness to be able to take a seat on the throne of God and boldly condemn someone they don’t like to an eternity in hell with the sons of perdition! Cool!!!

Cool!  A am happy you want o live by the word.  Have fun with your (unrighteous)  judgment.

 

Matthew 7:2

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.