Jump to content

The role of justification in forming beliefs


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

In a debate setting the requirement that we justify statements through providing references to the work of others is generally accepted.  This is the cautious, more scientific method.   Religious beliefs, however, are often more abstract, intuitional and less substantial, rational.  Since, for instance, the Bible verses are so often given to individual interpretation it seems to me that the thoughtful allowance of the use of intuition is acceptable. 

A man after my own heart!

Every single human heart and mind does it's own interpretation of everything anyway in creating our own visions of "the world" , it cannot be avoided.

Link to comment
On 11/10/2022 at 8:36 PM, Jakob42 said:

In a debate setting the requirement that we justify statements through providing references to the work of others is generally accepted.  This is the cautious, more scientific method.   Religious beliefs, however, are often more abstract, intuitional and less substantial, rational.  Since, for instance, the Bible verses are so often given to individual interpretation it seems to me that the thoughtful allowance of the use of intuition is acceptable. 

I agree for discussing personal belief and also our personal actions for that is going to be how we choose to make choices and live our lives anyway, we will be guided by our personal interpretations of religious beliefs as well as personal interpretations of the moral impact of accepted scientific facts (beliefs about accountability may be impacted by scientific studies of motivation, mental and emotional processes, etc). If discussing institutional belief though, then it seems to me the appropriate approach is to use the institution’s official statements of belief.

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

When that institution is a religious one I agree entirely.  Funny the way science continues to progress to new horizons and beyond while religion stays the same as though it cannot be improved upon.  But this is the way it is with we humans.  Comfort zones are of great importance.  While I find science to be of great importance I also believe that religions should be treated as though they were cherished traditions.  Indeed they are just that.

Nah.

Using "progression to new horizons" as a measure of goodness merely reveals your own idiosyncratic standards of goodness. Revolution is not good for its own sake. Change is not good for its own sake. "Moving forward" is only good depending on the direction and objective of the motion. Even the very concept of "improvement" is relative to what one considers to be good...and I will note that the Church of Jesus Christ is itself presented as an "improvement" upon previous religious formulations via continuing revelation. The claim that religions cannot improve is therefore dependent on arbitrary time-frames for "improvement". Indeed, the entire foundation of this criticism is so arbitrary and idiosyncratic that it has no persuasive power.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The claim that religions cannot improve is therefore dependent on arbitrary time-frames for "improvement". Indeed, the entire foundation of this criticism is so arbitrary and idiosyncratic that it has no persuasive power.

The entire belief in an open canon shows that.  We may not have the most progressive belief set- I think that is a good thing- but where would we be if we still advocated a priesthood with no black people and polygamy ?  That Mormon musical might have even been more insulting for the 14 people left in the church  ;)

Our paradigms are based on slow conservative progression, but still progression.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Jakob42 said:

It is the human soul, involved as it is in the continual dynamic of growth, that causes what are perceived as changes in religions to occur.

I think that this would not be news to some here; one might say that as humans change, their needs change and so the answers we find in religion must change too.

You are also not accounting for the simple fact that for US,God IS a  HUMAN who also progresses himself!!

As God changes, the "human soul" does as well.

Earthly beings ask new questions of the literal Father of their spirits, and He teaches us the answers. 

Nothing new here.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I agree with you.  Human souls are born with the purpose which is fulfilled through the acquisition of wisdom born off experience.  Such gains, however, cannot be realized in one lifetime only but through thousands.  In the end, when we have achieved, we do indeed become, as many religions believe, god like.  It means a moving from the human kingdom of souls to another which is, as one writer puts it, "post human"  The curious thing in all this is the inclination of we humans, personality centered as we are, to suggest that we remain individual throughout all of eternity.  This is not the case though.  To be god-like requires setting aside individuality, moving towards a collective consciousness.  This is what is means when we sometimes hear that we humans are a part of the body of expression of the Father, his children.  We express individually only for as long as we live in the Earth system.  This is because in order to live on Earth as a human being we must express as individuals.  

 

It is my belief that Jesus is one such soul who has attained.  He began as we did long ago and progressed through long, hard experience living tens of thousands of lifetimes here on Earth resulting, finally, in his attainment.  And now, in his assigned (under God) position as head of the Earth's heavens.  Indeed he is a true son of God.   This truth is revealed by him when he says "where I go ye will follow" (perhaps not exact quote).  The eventual attainment of like status for us is only a matter of time.  This is a specific, more tangible example, of what it means to become god-like.  Jesus sits at the head of the spiritual hierarchy of souls which are close to and guide the Earth.  His title, the Christ, reflects his responsibilities under the Father.  But since this is not revealed by the LDS church perhaps is not correct for me to mention it here.  The growth of we human souls here on Earth is Jesus' responsibility.  This is his assignment, under the Father.  This is the reason it was he who took up a physical body in order that we might be better instructed.  This is the reason for his sacrifice too, the lifting of sins.  This is the reason we are sent prophets from time to time.  No.  Jesus is not in some far distant unseen realm but very close to the Earth, our home.  Will he return someday?  I say he never left.  We just don't see him.

 

Of great interest to me is the idea of our planet's heavens being close, I say concentrically arranged and sorted into various levels of attainment, "the Father's house has many mansions" and that it is here from which the higher, more grown, among humanity reside while helping those yet in the physical to progress.  Those post human souls who assist in the work of the Father are by us called angels.   Entities such as Mormon and his son Moroni are two of these fulfilling their roles as messengers to humanity, those who have progress beyond the human phase of existence and are now serving the creator/source God by guiding those of us who are younger, those who are junior souls.  The angel Moroni was once a human being just like we are now.  They, through their appearance and proximity, clearly demonstrate to us that the godly paths they now walk will someday be outs to other groups of human souls perhaps on other worlds far distant.   There is a great beauty in God's creation most of which far transcends that of any planet.

 

I have never met a Christian, who believed that all has been revealed.  It certainly has not.  While yet in the human phase of existence (not yet god-like) we lack the higher degree of consciousness that would be required in order to comprehend the higher truths that exist.  Such things are quite literally beyond the capacity of the human mind to perceive.  This, too, is a reason for us being called the children of the Father. 

 

My apologies to LSD members for my intrusion (in their space) with my ideas.

 

I compliment the LDS church, not because of what they say but because of what they do not say.  They do not try to tell adherents that all has been revealed.  Rather, through their prophet they clearly indicate that life is dynamic, ever changing, not simplistic and one dimension yet in any instant of time essential doctrine does not change.  It is we whose requirements, thirst for more, not religion per se, that changes.  

 

 

Well I think you absolutely MUST put more study into our church and learn ALL of our teachings because your position and the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ LDS is VERY close except in matters which are..... not clearly defined and therefore we can easily speculate in those areas.

The point I think which we (you and I) might "debate"- fruitlessly because no one here in our realm can possibly understand while still on earth- would be the "reincarnation" aspect of your thinking that says that we must pass through many many earth lifetimes

I am getting up there in years, and if your avatar is a picture of you, then you are too ;), but frankly I have been through about as much of earth life as I can tolerate!

So our only supposed difference is not even how long it takes to be able to become "exalted"- (our term I believe what you mean as having "attained" or becoming like God.

It's not even really about "how long"- it is only about WHERE we spend that time.    We believe that after death, our progression continues as spirits for as long as it takes- eons, epochs, multiple "eternities" even because the semantic question in dealing with such long time "periods" is what IS an "eternity"?   One big bang to another?

We are co-eternal with God- THAT is straight up doctrine. Before we even came to earth we were "intelligences" which were and are eternal.  At some point- and this is up for grabs- we became "spirit children"- literally although I am not sure what that word even means in this context- and we were progressing at our own rates, some slower, some faster.   So even making it to earth- we have been through enormous amounts of alleged "time"- a human concept anyway- learning and growing BEFORE we even got to earth. 

We only get ONE earth life- which as I have said- is certainly enough for me- and then it's back to the other side to continue progression for....  what? Epochs?  Eternities? as long as it takes our stupid little spirits to grow into giants (figuratively of course)

But we can "accept Jesus" or learn about Christ even after we have passed away- certainly someone who lived 200,000 years before Christ needs to be fully taught before any such concept can be accepted.   But eventually, it is said, that ALL who have lived will understand and be converted- "Every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ."   Or if you are a young earther- which I don't expect you are- there are still people who have not even heart of Jesus- OR THE CONCEPT of Christ Consciousness, which is beyond LDS tolerance levels of discussion.   Clearly not doctrinal hereabouts- only one savior!

Personally I was born Catholic then became an atheist working on a masters in philosophy, became a Communist- which I see as a religion- Buddhist- and Hindu-ish whatsis medition thing period, and finally found the Church of JCLDS which to me, combined it ALL.  And that is what you need to see about us!

So I see us as universalists if we must take on a category- but others here may disagree, but to me it is semantics.  Long time.  You meet Jesus and believe. Longer time, and you can become as Father and Jesus himself IS.  But the relevant words actually say EVERY knee shall bow.  How that is not universalism makes no sense to me, and besides I like the idea.

So for us- one life on this hunk of rock as creatures, scurring around and worrying about eating and taking care of the grandkids, and where we want to retire to as if all troubles cease with retirement!   No, they just get more complex because you have a lot more people to worry about   ;)  !

But interestingly, after we become "like God" (exaltation) we become fully a 'part of the Family" in what we call the "Council of Gods".   In place of what some call the "Trinity" we have a family of at least three beings in one "family" who are unified into one "person" who think as one so much that they are really one "person" from our perspective.  It is not clear in LDS doctrine how the "Council" of co-Gods work- to me that is fine because that is something beyond present human consciousness anyway- we cannot comprehend how all that works so it is useless speculation to worry about.

Their major "job" is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity"   Immortality=no death, "Eternal Life"= the kind of life God has.

Quote

 

It is my belief that Jesus is one such soul who has attained.  He began as we did long ago and progressed through long, hard experience living tens of thousands of lifetimes here on Earth resulting, finally, in his attainment.  And now, in his assigned (under God) position as head of the Earth's heavens.  Indeed he is a true son of God.   This truth is revealed by him when he says "where I go ye will follow" (perhaps not exact quote).  The eventual attainment of like status for us is only a matter of time.  This is a specific, more tangible example, of what it means to become god-like.  Jesus sits at the head of the spiritual hierarchy of souls which are close to and guide the Earth.  His title, the Christ, reflects his responsibilities under the Father.  But since this is not revealed by the LDS church perhaps is not correct for me to mention it here.  The growth of we human souls here on Earth is Jesus' responsibility.  This is his assignment, under the Father.  This is the reason it was he who took up a physical body in order that we might be better instructed.  This is the reason for his sacrifice too, the lifting of sins.  This is the reason we are sent prophets from time to time.  No.  Jesus is not in some far distant unseen realm but very close to the Earth, our home.  Will he return someday?  I say he never left.  We just don't see him.

 

 

 

For us, one return, pretty much the standard Christian view of the second coming.   Pretty much exactly like us- except one return- and remember for us FATHER and SON are both embodied.   ALL who have been exalted and become Gods- yes capital G- are embodied beings.   None of this Divine vs Material Nature stuff.  Out human destiny is to "grow up and be like father"> my personal words so we are all Gods in embryo.   It is often said we are of the same "species" as God, obviously almost blasphemy to some, raised on Platonic dualism but yes there is a spark of God within all of us because we ARE of his nature and he went through the same path we did- eternal intelligence, spirit child, "earth life" on some other "earth", eons of progression, then a resurrected being and still embodied.

And we designate the leader or President of our church as a "prophet"- and are selected it is believed by God, because he out-lives 12 other "apostles"

Standard Christian belief is that Jesus ascended with his body- but does he still have it?  Emphatically yes!  Book of Mormon teaches of embodied God, as well as Bible.

Your paragraph 4 above is pretty much exactly what we believe- perhaps some semantic changes.

Your post has 6 paragraphs, I have commented on three and 4 as I just said IS our doctrine already.

Paragraph 5- absolutely no intrusion!  You are mostly teaching out own doctrine here as I see it!

Last paragraph, 6:

Quote

I compliment the LDS church, not because of what they say but because of what they do not say.  They do not try to tell adherents that all has been revealed.  Rather, through their prophet they clearly indicate that life is dynamic, ever changing, not simplistic and one dimension yet in any instant of time essential doctrine does not change.  It is we whose requirements, thirst for more, not religion per se, that changes.  

Absolutely true and full agreement with us!   We readily acknowledge that we have SO MUCH to learn, but presently held back by our own level of consciousness!

I am pleased to meet you because I was like you in so many ways 43 years ago when I found this church, and let me tell you in that 43 years my knowledge and testimony has only grown.    I have had it revealed to me in no uncertain terms that this is the church which God wants me in, and the more I study it, the more my testimony grows.   We often say "I know this church is true" which is a horribly ambiguous statement to my philosophical ears, but yes I for myself DO know this "church is true" in common parlance because God has revealed it to me. 

Welcome WELCOME to the board!

We are getting several new members lately who are great contributors to our discussions- pretty exciting time!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

His title, the Christ, reflects his responsibilities under the Father.  But since this is not revealed by the LDS church perhaps is not correct for me to mention it here.  The growth of we human souls here on Earth is Jesus' responsibility.  This is his assignment, under the Father.  This is the reason it was he who took up a physical body in order that we might be better instructed.  This is the reason for his sacrifice too, the lifting of sins. 

 

 

No, of course we believe this, Jesus is the Word, John 1, the messenger, is actually the organizer of the material of this of this world, one of many organized as humans do, out of materials already here; no ex nihilo

You are greatly misinformed as to our doctrine 

Link to comment
On 11/12/2022 at 1:22 AM, Tacenda said:

I reached out to a neurologist to get an idea if I should get a less intense x-ray like the ct scan.

CT scans are actually more intense x-ray wise (an MRI doesn't actually use x-rays). However it is a good idea seeing what a neurologist thinks about which particular scan is more suitable in your situation as different types of scans are used for different purposes.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

CT scans are actually more intense x-ray wise (an MRI doesn't actually use x-rays). However it is a good idea seeing what a neurologist thinks about which particular scan is more suitable in your situation as different types of scans are used for different purposes.

Thank you!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jakob42 said:

The most vivid of which was when my wife and I were together in revolutionary France.  The memories are visual.   She shared them.   

This is fascinating. Would you care to go into more detail? 

I would be willing to do so over PM if you don't want to do so in this thread.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I do believe that human souls are born to their own spiritual plane (which surrounds the Earth) and that from that base of operations so to speak return time and time again.  This solves the difficulty of the man who does not have a chance to live a full life for one reason or another.   But I have vivid memories of other lives.   The most vivid of which was when my wife and I were together in revolutionary France.  The memories are visual.   She shared them.    My most dramatic memory though is being with my parents for about one week before I was born this time.  I was always above and behind them.  It was very vivid.   When I was about 14 I asked my mother about that house and the car that we rode in.   She was aghast at what I was saying because at that time in the early thirties we were renting a small apartment and had no car at all.  The Plymouth coupe that I described in detail was borrowed.  My birth was imminent and a friend loaned them the car so they could get her to the hospital.  But my mother never talked about that short chapter in her marriage.  No photos were taken.   Over the decades since then my memory remains strong and has survived all attempts to debunk.   And believe me I am a skeptic...   And that's a fact.

 

About religions.  They, in my view are all given by God but are tailored to fit the culture in which they find themselves.  This is not to say they are all correct in details of course.    Regarding Jesus.   He adopted that name only during his incarnation 2000 years ago.  Before then what was his name?  Can anyone really know?   I believe that it is quite possible that the Christ may have taken a physical body on Earth at other times before the one we know so well.  Why not after all?  There were human beings that needed his guidance.   Would god say "sorry, it's not time for me to send my son yet" and let them all perish???    The fact that we don't know is enough for me to allow that it is quite possible.

 

I have studied the church and almost joined back in the seventies.   I could not though.  I would have had to hide certain of my beliefs from others.  This is not really a good idea.   But here is one point.   The fact that the church has a prophet seems to acknowledge that there are things, facts, that are yet to be revealed.  

 

One more thing is this.   Yes God does speak through men from time to time.   But each man (or woman) who is the channel (forgive the new age connotation)  is a fallible human being.  The information from God is pure but it can easily be diluted or distorted while passing through the brain of the prophet.   I am not willing to allow that a prophet is infallible.  So long as human beings are involved there are chances for errors.   This is my way of saying I dislike thinking in absolute terms. 

 

Lastly regarding reincarnation.   God with holds this information, I believe, because it is unnecessary.  Far too many would misuse the information.  Should we be preoccupied with the drama and fascination of past lives and neglect to live properly obeying God's educts in this life?   Or... shall we say "what the heck, just this once I'll sin because I can make up for it in a later life".   Many would think this way and do strange things like that.   Indeed it is documented that in ancient China it was possible to enter into a contract with the promise of repayment in the next life.  

 

We humans are not all the same spiritual age.  Some of us are beginners.  Some are quite advanced.   There is no particular design which states only spiritually advanced men or women can be political leaders.  We see many very young souls in positions of leadership.   At the same time we often find the advanced leading solitary, often monastic, lives of prayer and fasting and service etc etc....   When a man or woman is thus committed does it matter what religion they belong to?   No. 

 

Religions are of the Earth only.   In the Earth's heavens there are none.  When we return to our homes there we will not find any Bibles or requirements that we believe this or that.  The reason is complex.  Suffice to say when we leave our physical bodies and the control of the personality behind we move into an expanded awareness.  We suddenly understand so much more than we knew while on Earth.  

 

Thanks for the good discourse.  I try to remember that I am a guest on this forum.  It is not my place to get too uppity with this or that.  I like to consider ideas objectively, without the emotionalism that so often accompanies fervor. 

 

I watched the movie The Book of Mormon last night.  I have a copy of it in my library.   The travellers sail across the Atlantic and apparently make landfall on the mainland of present day Mexico???   A hint is given that there is a connection to the Aztecs (I think).  That would be quite a feat.  Passing by the islands in the Caribbean without seeing one of them would be hard to do.   I have a question about that though.   I have also read that the those immigrants, the family of Mormon, had a settlement on the south bank of the St. Lawrence river.  This would explain the plates being discovered in that area.   So... if they first landed in present day Mexico (or thereabouts) how did they manage to get to New York with the plates to bury them?   The movie does not explain that.

 

I study religions for two reasons.  First is that they offer windows to the past.  Second they offer insights into the beliefs of others.   I am of the opinion that should we be able to raise ourselves up, higher and higher above the Earth, we would eventually reach a plateau whereat all those religions would merge into one.  Complete understanding.  Visions of God.   A delightful idea even if it's wrong.

 

Thanks for being open minded. 

 

I have no problem with any of this. I have had similar experiences with slightly different explanations. I only mentioned leadership to assure you that I know what the church teaches, and does not teach.

It all fits from my perspective. I am  not about to limit what pre-mortal spirits can or cannot due or see, or what spirits can communicate 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

The church rightfully avoids the complications associated with this expanded existential doctrine.  There is no good reason for us to be distracted from the requirements of our lifetimes to consider such matters.   The church leadership, and those who decide what to reveal, are quite correct.  Again... a man, you or I, live this life then die never to return.  In this respect the idea of reincarnation is wrong.  But... looked at from the perspective of the soul which is NOT a part of the body but only connected to it while the body lives, reincarnation is very real.   The soul is not the product of a personality at all.  The soul is above such things.  The soul is eternal.  We, each of us, are projections of the soul.    Were God to decide to reveal everything to man we would be so confused that just living would be almost impossible for us.  Much better it is to be taught that it is the here and now that determines our eternity. 

 

The Mormon church is correct about something else.  In a certain area of the mid-heavens there are to be found, temples which dispense ordinances just as they do here on Earth.  Few religions within Christianity are aware of such things.  In truth this is the reason that in our world there are so many temples associated with ancient times.   They, all of them regardless of the religion that made them, were intended to allow connections, man to God.   The LDS temples are specifically intended to be representative of the temples in heaven, to bring forth this ancient tradition for the benefit of the children of God. This living dynamic is one of the great and often underappreciated or mis-understood beauties of the LDS church.  In the temple it is possible to set aside for an hour or so the Earth life and to find ascension.  This, alone, is reason enough to join the church.  The study of reincarnation can wait.  In the grand scheme of things it is not really important. 

 

 

Nietzsche had a Doctrine called eternal recurrence which ultimately is fairly complex in its ramifications but the simplest way to put it is that one should live one's life in such a way that one can affirm that he has lived his life in a way such that every act he does will be repeated again "da capo", from the beginning, in every detail, for eternity.

I think that he might say that having a new chance in every round does not affirm the life one is living today, because it can be done over.

LDS believe that God lives in "one eternal round ", without examining  what that could mean

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jakob42 said:

I understand you.  I would join the LDS church except I would have to keep quiet about my beliefs that do not coincide with theirs.  That would be dishonest.

 

In my view one of the great problems with Christianity in general is that they give us a present and a future but have nothing to say about our past except perhaps that we come from God.  

 

Few churches teach reincarnation simply because it is not necessary to know about all that.  We are better off paying attention to our present life.  Here, not in tripping in the past, is where we make advances.

 

 

There is a minority opinion among the chattering class of Church members that holds to a soteriological position called Multiple Mortal Probations, which is basically reincarnation except that it is usually expressed as us living prior lives on other worlds, not this one. 

John Pratt tries to craft an argument for it here: https://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/2019/probations.html#2.1 In my opinion he stretches too far for his case to be convincing: for example, the quote he takes from Melvin Ballard and W.W. Phelps do not imply reincarnation whatsoever. But perhaps Orson Whitney, Eliza R. Snow (both influential early Saints) and Lorenzo Snow (an apostle and President of the Church) found the idea reasonable. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jakob42 said:

I understand you.  I would join the LDS church except I would have to keep quiet about my beliefs that do not coincide with theirs.  That would be dishonest.

 

In my view one of the great problems with Christianity in general is that they give us a present and a future but have nothing to say about our past except perhaps that we come from God.  

 

Few churches teach reincarnation simply because it is not necessary to know about all that.  We are better off paying attention to our present life.  Here, not in tripping in the past, is where we make advances.

 

 

The trick and problem is just language itself. Wittgenstein speaks of language games; different ways of seeing and stating the different worlds so the communication can happen.

It is not dishonest to speak another language so others can understand you.

I think that's what Joseph had to do to reach others in his time; his "translations" were for believers in folk magic, and so he used what could to communicate. 

When I was  child, I lived in western NY. We lived in a rural area. One of our neighbors was very old, thinking back over my age, and adding it to her age, I speculate she might have been born in the 1870's.

I got sick and had a fever. My mother kind of "looked out for the old widow next door" checking on her daily.  In fact, the lot where we had built our house, was once a part of her farm- she was selling it off bit by bit, so they knew each other pretty well.  In one of mom's daily visits she mentioned that I had a fever.

The widow had the answer!

She said "Oh, just put a silver knife under the bed, and it will cut the fever!"

What was one do at that point?  Engage in discussion about why she is wrong and be "honest" and put her on your own 'true path ' or simply quietly acknowledge that perhaps for her that IS her " true path"?

Personally I do not "correct" my fundamentalist friends, I simply try to speak a language they MIGHT understand.  At times it is not easy, but one, imo, must be able to hear the person through and learn what one can from all, even if is only patience in listening.

But maybe it is I who can learn from them

Truth is only found in a community of believers, so to learn one must either believe their truth or know it well enough to "speak their language" and find what they have that might help me someday

Link to comment
1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

There is a minority opinion among the chattering class of Church members that holds to a soteriological position called Multiple Mortal Probations, which is basically reincarnation except that it is usually expressed as us living prior lives on other worlds, not this one. ...

I will be completely satisfied with whatever modest eternal reward (although Joseph Smith taught [forgive my lack of a reference] that it would be "a great while" after we have departed this life before we have learned everything necessary to ready ourselves for that reward) I receive when I depart this life.  I really don't want to be stuck in a multiple-mortality "loop,"  thank you very much! <_< :rolleyes: 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I will be completely satisfied with whatever modest eternal reward (although Joseph Smith taught [forgive my lack of a reference] that it would be "a great while" after we have departed this life before we have learned everything necessary to ready ourselves for that reward) I receive when I depart this life.  I really don't want to be stuck in a multiple-mortality "loop,"  thank you very much! <_< :rolleyes: 

I imagine that, if there are multiple mortal probations (and I don't think it's strictly impossible though I do think it wouldn't be universal) it would probably be voluntary.

It seems to me that sealings are not compatible with the idea of being reincarnated, they might function to "lock you in" so to speak. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I imagine that, if there are multiple mortal probations (and I don't think it's strictly impossible though I do think it wouldn't be universal) it would probably be voluntary.

It seems to me that sealings are not compatible with the idea of being reincarnated, they might function to "lock you in" so to speak. 

As someone who has successfully "attracted" the collective indifference of the female of the species in its entirely in this mortal probation, I hope that whatever provisions have been made for those who are not sealed (except to one's own family of origin) will occur during the Millennium rather than during another probationary state.

Link to comment
On 11/9/2022 at 1:37 PM, rodheadlee said:

When I go into a MRI machine my entire brain goes into hibernation. I do not want to know that I am in a small tube with electronic magnets going around and around and around. On the other hand my wife's brain goes into hyperactive mode, flight or fight mode. She says prayer is the only thing that helps her.

So I would suggest that these tests are flawed for numerous psychological reasons.

I just mentally go to Hawaii and watch kids hammer on a garbage can.

It's a good exercise in making reality into whatever you want it to be. 😫

Link to comment
On 11/13/2022 at 9:21 AM, OGHoosier said:

Nah.

Using "progression to new horizons" as a measure of goodness merely reveals your own idiosyncratic standards of goodness. Revolution is not good for its own sake. Change is not good for its own sake. "Moving forward" is only good depending on the direction and objective of the motion. Even the very concept of "improvement" is relative to what one considers to be good...and I will note that the Church of Jesus Christ is itself presented as an "improvement" upon previous religious formulations via continuing revelation. The claim that religions cannot improve is therefore dependent on arbitrary time-frames for "improvement". Indeed, the entire foundation of this criticism is so arbitrary and idiosyncratic that it has no persuasive power.

It appears then that you think that one could not then put forward a paradigm for a "best moral paradigm" for the entire human race, like Kant's "Categorical Imperative"?

It is essentially the golden rule, supposedly derived by reason alone.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It appears then that you think that one could not then put forward a paradigm for a "best moral paradigm" for the entire human race, like Kant's "Categorical Imperative"?

It is essentially the golden rule, supposedly derived by reason alone.

 

No, I simply think that "progression for progression's sake" is a bad moral paradigm because it has no content and is expressly ordered around the lack of content.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

No, I simply think that "progression for progression's sake" is a bad moral paradigm because it has no content and is expressly ordered around the lack of content.

Ok I get that now, I agree.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I don't much care to follow the works of others in matters of spirituality, destiny and all that.   I have my own source.  I have found that if one wants to know the answer to something then all one has to do is to send their mind to where the answers are and remember what is learned.  

Yeah, but that hurts your credibility.

No quotes in today's world indicates ignorance of academia which automatically makes you look uneducated.

I can't help that. If you want to help others, you need credibility regardless of how brilliant you are.

You can't even sell hair cream today without some new and fancy claims about your new miracle ingredient Z76 that give you everything you could possibly want in a hair cream, including fame and fortune and girls chasing you!  Remember Brylcream?

No one will listen 

And if no one listens, how did you help them? Why not just sit in meditation all day?

Been there, done that.

https://youtu.be/f6gnXP6ggS8

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 11/6/2022 at 12:33 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

. A common theme that the LDS Church argues is the best method to determining if that prompting is genuine is to see how it compares with earlier revelation:

And imo that is a circular statement, and even the advice given in determining whether or not a specific "revelation" is in fact from God and not some imposter, is to try it out and see if it works for you.

So either way you yourself become the arbiter of what is right or wrong.

That's ok for me, no problem, but it certainly doesn't answer if the prompting is "real".

I guess if it works for you, and fits with your understanding of the gospel, that becomes your standard.

I just don't see an answer in that, except unaltered Pragmatism, which is fine with me.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Jakob42 said:

I have experienced everything that I speak of in my life.   This is the reason I so seldom quote others.  I have my own sources which I trust.   Acceptance?  Credibility?  Not important to me.  I would ask that if the reader thinks it might be true then the thing to do is to pray about it.  Prayers are always answered as we all know.

 

Thanks.... good discussion.

I think similarly, but going by your criteria it's useless, you have no wish to learn from others, and if I follow your example, neither will I. Frankly there is no way or reason you would or would not accept what I say, so why bother.  You have locked yourself out of communication 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...