Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Elder Kevin S. Hamilton emphasizes importance of Christ’s organized church


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok.  I listened to the talk, or a least what linked to, and I did not see what people here are complaining about.

He is expressing his paradigm and I agree with his paradigm.  The paradigm includes the idea that one must receive all the Covenants to be exalted.

Fine.  The paradigm also says that when we die, we will universally see that the Covenant path is the way to go.

I am hearing something different OR there must be links to more?

Or maybe if you asked questions with references?

Suppose  Buddhist said "to reach Nirvanah, you must follow these practices: 1, 2, 3, 4."

Ok, maybe I want to go to the CK instead.  You do the LDS paradigm then.

Same thing

The idea that we have a scientific knowledge of what's after death is not rational.

HOPE FOR THINGS UNSEEN 

So pick your paradigm and stick with it.

The purpose of religion is to find what is sweet to you: Alma 32.

That's MY paradigm, and I have no problem with what this elder says in the long run, just that I am uncomfortable with his allegedly dogmatic approach.

1. Trust you own testimony is also in Alma, James, Moroni, and all religions. 

The kingdom of heaven is within, not in science, if it was in a scientific realm existing empirically, it would be vulnerable to science; it is not because it is about what the belief does for you

2. Trust you own testimony is also in Alma, James, Moroni, and all religions. 

So do it.  ;)

 

Just an addition,

since humans, and most reading this ARE, ;) the state of "salvation" or "nirvana", or feeling unity with God, or "knowing the church is true" IS, and logically must be, a state of mind or at least be identifiable as such. 

Humans know only what humans are capable of knowing, certainly some savants may excel in certain areas above all others like perhaps prophets and super-scientists, Newtons, Einsteins, etc. - the "great minds" of their times, even perhaps the human Jesus, about whom it is said "learned line by line", and felt and knew human mental states.  It becomes a synthetic a priori truth, as Kant might say; learning line by line is itself an easy definition OF the synthetic a priori.  Humans are capable of visions and insights far beyond our "normal" waking states; hallucinations and psychosis are the pathological side of this phenomenon, while perhaps the placebo effect scientifically demonstrates "faith healing", which is also taken as a "miracle" if seen religiously. And we all experience dreams and the mysteries of their content.

All these can be termed "human mental states"

And finally the Church of Jesus Christ, and Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and other writings, including the "prophets" of today teach us to follow our own deep feelings, our consciences, useful ideas popping into our minds -- all those MUST be human mental states since we as humans do in fact experience them.

Alma 32 says that truth is "sweet", and that work well for humanity's good.

And we learn line by line.  Virtually all religions teach that spiritual progression is like climbing "Jacob's Ladder" - an intentional process of discipline step by step moving "up the ladder" which is a process of progression of human states of mind or consciousness.  Following the "Covenant Path" IS just like these steps of progression, and obedience is always part of the methodology, if nothing else, at least obedience to the process itself, line by line.

Even if your "religion" is improving your health, you must go "line by line" in eating, exercise, etc. --hard "obedience" discipline to improve our health.

So bottom line: I ain't got no problaymo wit dis here talk. ;)

 

 

 

 

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

 

Some observations.

1. The Book of Mormon writers were authorized prophets of God. Arminius, et al., were not. Since the Book of Mormon is the revealed Word of God, perhaps the principles that Arminianism might have in common with it are correct. I’m cool with that.

2. Perhaps Arminius or one of his compadres was the phantom Early Modern English writer who supposedly authored the book through some circuitous path of translations that can be ferreted out with word studies. Some here would be cool with that.

3. The Book of Mormon was written over 1200 years before Arminian theology appeared. Some here would not be cool with that.

————-

Actually, there is an essential doctrine about polygamy in the BoM that was followed in its practice by 19th century LDS leaders and continues to be our doctrine today…

The doctrine of baptism in the BoM includes implicit instructions given by Jesus in his own words…

Regarding anti-trinitarianism in the BoM, there are many excellent LDS sources that treat this in depth.

Other etceteras?

Pre-mortal existence.  ✔️ 

Foreordination.  ✔️

Authority in the ministry.  ✔️

Need for an authorized and organized church.  ✔️

The necessity of the Fall.  ✔️

Baptism required of all who are accountable.  ✔️

Others you might think of?

I am never quite sure why you disagree when we really aren't disagreeing.  I have never belittled the Book of Mormon in any post in my years here. I am not an apologist, nor do I know anything about EmE or whatever that is. Its historicity is not something I would ever debate with anyone, unless someone misspeaks about Mesoamerican history to make a point. I also don't debate anyone about whether Jonah was literally swallowed by a big fish. Or whether a whale is a fish. Or how long a man could survive in a whale. Or a fish. Or any teachings that could reasonably be interpreted as a spiritual message wrapped up in a story. I like stories. Another reason I like the Book of Mormon. It is filled with great stories. Their historicity is of no consequence to me.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

The use of this violent metaphors was at best a very bad choice of words

If Jesus Christ can use such metaphors, we can too.

Matthew 10:34-38 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

Matthew 18:6 "
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Matthew 18:9 "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

Quote

How easy would it have been for Elder Holland to issue a statement of clarification that he meant no physical harm to the LGBT community.

Holland's so-called violent musket talk to BYU faculty:

"In that spirit, let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind—in many instances crushingly cruel—to these, our ­brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and we have wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the ­obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.

But it will assist all of us—it will assist ­everyone—trying to provide help in this ­matter if things can be kept in some proportion and balance in the process. For example, we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, “Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.” We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.

Musket fire? Yes, we will always need defenders of the faith, but “friendly fire” is a tragedy—and from time to time the Church, its leaders, and some of our colleagues within the university community have taken such fire on this campus. And sometimes it isn’t friendly, wounding students and the parents of students—so many who are confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means. My beloved friends, this kind of confusion and conflict ought not to be. Not here. There are better ways to move toward crucially important goals in these very difficult matters—ways that show empathy and understanding for everyone while maintaining loyalty to prophetic leadership and devotion to revealed doctrine."

That you continue to slander Holland after all this time, and assert things in direct contradiction to his talk, demonstrates just how hard it is to push back against malicious rumors and false statements.  Holland does not need to make a followup public press release to restate what he just said. Characterizing the above as a call to violence against the gay community is a lie. Such lies need to be called out for what they are.

Edited by helix
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I wonder if you would accept the possibility that being born again is an aorist or point-in-time event, while sanctification is a process that will go on eternally, similar to the Saint's exaltation? For the Christian life to be lived to its fullest, there must be salvation and sanctification. Perhaps two parts of the same process or event. So it that case we probably agree about the process part.

I suppose some language is used differently. Different individuals in the scriptures and contemporary prophets have used different terms in slightly (and sometimes not so slightly) different ways. I try not to get hung up on linguistic hedges. Culturally we tend to use the terms justification and sanctification over "born again" but I'm ok with that term too. Even with different "definitions" of justification and sanctification, like you, Elder Christofferson view them as parts of the same process. "While justification and sanctification may be viewed as distinct topics, in reality I believe they are elements of a single divine process that qualifies us to live in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ," (Justification and Sanctification).

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, helix said:

If Jesus Christ can use such metaphors, we can too.

Matthew 10:34-38 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

Matthew 18:6 "
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Matthew 18:9 "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

Holland's so-called violent musket talk to BYU faculty:

"In that spirit, let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind—in many instances crushingly cruel—to these, our ­brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and we have wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the ­obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.

But it will assist all of us—it will assist ­everyone—trying to provide help in this ­matter if things can be kept in some proportion and balance in the process. For example, we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, “Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.” We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.

Musket fire? Yes, we will always need defenders of the faith, but “friendly fire” is a tragedy—and from time to time the Church, its leaders, and some of our colleagues within the university community have taken such fire on this campus. And sometimes it isn’t friendly, wounding students and the parents of students—so many who are confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means. My beloved friends, this kind of confusion and conflict ought not to be. Not here. There are better ways to move toward crucially important goals in these very difficult matters—ways that show empathy and understanding for everyone while maintaining loyalty to prophetic leadership and devotion to revealed doctrine."

That you continue to slander Holland after all this time, and assert things in direct contradiction to his talk, demonstrates just how hard it is to push back against malicious rumors and false statements.  Holland does not need to make a followup public press release to restate what he just said. Characterizing the above as a call to violence against the gay community is a lie. Such lies need to be called out for what they are.

Blah, Blah Blah.  I never said metaphors should never be used.  This is what I said, and this is not what you addressed.  

Quote

 

It is impossible for me to believe that Elder Holland never heard about the uproar that his speech caused.  Yet he said NOTHING to clarify his position.  How easy would it have been for Elder Holland to issue a statement of clarification that he meant no physical harm to the LGBT community.  A simple statement would have taken the wind out of the sails of those who believe he was insensitive to what those in the LGBT community deal with in fear on a daily basis.  I mean it is not like he doesn't have a very large pulpit that would easily cover such an apology.   It literally would have taken 10 minutes to clarify his remarks.  


His complete silence on this subject can only be interpreted in a few ways.

1.  Elder Holland was perfectly ok with people taking his metaphor literally as a dog whistle call for arms against the LGBT community.

2. Whatever an apostle say is always correct and never should be apologized for.

3. Apostles never apologize for any errors in judgement.  

4. Elder Holland has so much self pride that he just could not have issued a statement of clarification.

 

Maybe I am missing something.  Can you explain why Elder Holland never made any attempt to clear up his statement and clarify exactly what he meant if in fact some people too offense and misinterpreted his intent of his words?

 

Do you actually have an answer to my questions?

You claim that Elder Holland does not need to clarify what he said, yet more people "misunderstood" him than understood what he said and took his remarks as some kind of dog whistle to rally continued violence against the LGBT community.  I would say that needs clarification.  

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok. I am not sure why you would ask me if I accept the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "one of His works." I have maintained that truth for all five years I have been on this forum. I certainly believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of His works that together form the "church collectively." I guess I will turn the question around. Do you believe the Mennonite, Methodist, and Catholic churches are also each "one of his works" and part of the church collectively? Please read my reply to t-shirt's wonderful post to which you refer. I would like to refer you to that!

So have you  baptized in the LDS Church? 

Have you received the Aaronic priesthood? The Melchizedek priesthood? Have you gotten your   endowment, sealed in the temple?

These things are required to go to the Celestial Kingdom.

As far as the Mennonites go I have never studied them. I have never studied the Methodist. I was raised Presbyterian. My wife was raised Catholic. I believe the Catholic Church to be our older sister.

I believe many churches are the works of men and not the works of Christ. I believe many of the members of these churches are true followers of Christ and are on a different point in their Journey than I am or you are. What matters is what truths have been revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, and if they follow these truths.

I'm a member of the church but they won't let me in the temple. They won't even give me my patriarchal blessing. It doesn't change the fact that these things are needed.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, helix said:

I have a rule of thumb: When critics start judging and condemning others for things NOT said, critics have completely lost their argument's moral foundation.  When critics also insist others should apologize for things not said, then they've gone off the deep end.

Your assertion is that Holland and Hamilton are in the wrong because they haven't offered up a social media response.  Your assertion is that Holland and Hamilton must send out follow-up statements indicating why church antagonists' portrayal is a caricature. You said this needs to be an apology, as though these caricatures are somehow their fault.

These two already clarified their remarks in their talk. Holland said we need to love those in the gay community, that the world is crushingly cruel to them, that muskets and trowels are analogies of building and defense of BYU.  Hamilton already said leaders are imperfect, he doesn't need to send out a press release pointing it out a second time. These two are under no obligation to offer performative apologies to please the same critics who lied about them and started the rumors.

Actually I asserted that it would be helpful if they had clarified their comments. 

Thanks for the quotes.  I am glad that they clarified their remarks.  I feel it is very helpful.  Can you provide the link where you found either remark?

And to clarify, I never asked for an apology.  Just a clarification.

Link to comment
On 2/2/2023 at 4:23 PM, T-Shirt said:

It is sometimes difficult to interact with you when you feel the need to be insulting. The Church honors and encourages respectful questions. Anyoneta can ask them, faithful members, doubting members, apostates, and non-members. Implying that member are not allowed to ask questions or that faithful members of the Church do not have “critical thinking skills” is not helpful in furthering the discussion and is just inaccurate.

I have not been insulting at all.  And really your entire post is not one that I want to spend time picking apart. I understand the intent of the message.  Why do we need a church?  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is Jesus's church and you cannot separate the two. The church administers ordinances "required" for salvation and exaltation.  And in it the talk, IMO, and based on the accurate quotes I provided, there is a message that one really ought not to oppose and question the church leaders and whether you like it or not, he does equate such actions as opposing and questioning Jesus. You can talk all day long about being able to question and get your own revelation. I listened to this message as an active member for 52 years.  I did not say members cannot ask question.  The point is that if you have a position that opposes the leaders you really need to adjust your thinking and pray to get a confirmation that they are correct.

As for critical thinking, sorry but I think the high demand aspect of the church, the messages repeatedly delivered, the passage in the scriptures that talk about tota devotion and so on, all of these discourage critical thinking about the church and its claims.  If that offends you and you think I am insulting I guess you will just have to feel that way.  

Last of all you accused me of misquoting Kevin Hamilton and I asked you to demonstrate where I did that.  Your post failed in that.  You don't have to bother. This thread seems to have pretty much worn the topic out and it was what I expected for the believers here.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Your answer is also found in 2 Nephi 31

Repent, covenant (by being baptized and receiving the baptism and gift of the Holy Ghost) to keep his commandments, endure to the end. Receive the promises.

Navidad I am sure has been baptized.  And if there is a god out there my guess is that being will accept that baptism as much as that being would yours. If there is such a being I am fairly confident that being really is not worried much about all these human made rituals.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am never quite sure why you disagree when we really aren't disagreeing.  I have never belittled the Book of Mormon in any post in my years here. I am not an apologist, nor do I know anything about EmE or whatever that is. Its historicity is not something I would ever debate with anyone, unless someone misspeaks about Mesoamerican history to make a point. I also don't debate anyone about whether Jonah was literally swallowed by a big fish. Or whether a whale is a fish. Or how long a man could survive in a whale. Or a fish. Or any teachings that could reasonably be interpreted as a spiritual message wrapped up in a story. I like stories. Another reason I like the Book of Mormon. It is filled with great stories. Their historicity is of no consequence to me.

I  gave my answers to your questions and statements. I may disagree with your assessments, but I try not to do it disagreeably. 

Surely you have noticed the many lengthy and sometimes heated discussions with Carmack here about the presence of EmE in the Book of Mormon and the proposal that it was written by some scholar or divine during that period and found it’s way somehow to Joseph Smith? There’s one going on right now. Page 7.

 

 

This inaccurate statement with its dismissive conclusion (appendages…add-ones) just begged for  correction.

Quote

Nothing about *plural marriage*, *sealings*, *correctly authorized baptisms by correctly authorized priesthood holders*, *anti-trinitarianism*, *etc*.  The Book of Mormon is the gospel 101.

Our doctrines run deep in the Book of Mormon, but one must pay attention. I noted  a few more. What other 19th century add-ones do you have in mind?


Stories with good messages are one thing, but there be tremendous ramifications if Jesus truly taught people in America after his resurrection. That may be of no consequence to you, but its veracity is the spirit-revealed foundation of my faith in Jesus Christ. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Navidad I am sure has been baptized.  And if there is a god out there my guess is that being will accept that baptism as much as that being would yours. If there is such a being I am fairly confident that being really is not worried much about all these human made rituals.

If there is a God out there, it would be best to be more than fairly confident about or to guess what He might think about such things. The stakes are too high for guesswork. There is a God out there, and He said all accountable people must be baptized by one holding the proper authority, including His perfect Son. The Son humbly complied with His will. We must do the same.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

If there is a God out there, it would be best to be more than fairly confident about or to guess what He might think about such things. The stakes are too high for guesswork. There is a God out there, and He said all accountable people must be baptized by one holding the proper authority, including His perfect Son. The Son humbly complied with His will. We must do the same.

And people forget that all that can happen even after death, when I am sure the choice is much clearer.

Waking up "dead" has got to be at least a bit of a shock to even the most reticent folks.  I imagine the lines to get baptized by proxy must even be worse than Disneyland!

Hard to believe, I know.  ;)

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If there is a God out there, it would be best to be more than fairly confident about or to guess what He might think about such things.

Sure.  I am fairly confident that what I said is accurate.  You are confident that your beliefs are accurate. As are billions of other believers.  

 

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

The stakes are too high for guesswork.

Meh.  Everyone is doing guess work even those who think they aren't.  You think the BoM is true and historical with not one shred of archeological evidence.  You disaraged Arminius, a real historical person as less than am imagined "prophet" from the BoM.  So yea you are doing total guesswork.  You guess that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint is God's chosen path and think you have a metaphysical confirmation of that. So do hundred of millions of others. Yet a handful of humans that believe like you do are supposedly correct and all others have it wrong.  You disparaged a man's beliefs and baptism because you believe a being that is powerful enough to create this universe really worries about rituals and some supposed authority to perform them.  ALl guesswork.

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

There is a God out there, and He said all accountable people must be baptized by one holding the proper authority, including His perfect Son. The Son humbly complied with His will. We must do the same.

No.  You believe there is a God that requires this.  Did he tell you this in person?  Or did you read it and hear it from those who claim this being told them that?  Of course it is the latter.  

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure.  I am fairly confident that what I said is accurate.  You are confident that your beliefs are accurate. As are billions of other believers.  

Ok here is the difference between you and me.

You believe in "accuracy" which is unknowable because all we have is how things APPEAR to humans.

I would never ever use that word, because it implies we can somehow get outside our own brains to what is "real", and therefore measure "accuracy" by comparing the statement with the alleged "reality" through "evidence".  

But still all we have as reality is what our very limited brains tell us!

What color are gamma rays?  Does that question even make sense?

I think in terms of paradigms because all we get is guesses and theories and hunches about "reality"

What WORKS BEST to get what we want?

There us no way to measure "accuracy" until one gets outside a human brain!  All evidence gives us is a temporary theory at best.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I  gave my answers to your questions and statements. I may disagree with your assessments, but I try not to do it disagreeably. 

Surely you have noticed the many lengthy and sometimes heated discussions with Carmack here about the presence of EmE in the Book of Mormon and the proposal that it was written by some scholar or divine during that period and found it’s way somehow to Joseph Smith? There’s one going on right now. Page 7.

 

 

This inaccurate statement with its dismissive conclusion (appendages…add-ones) just begged for  correction.

Our doctrines run deep in the Book of Mormon, but one must pay attention. I noted  a few more. What other 19th century add-ones do you have in mind?


Stories with good messages are one thing, but there be tremendous ramifications if Jesus truly taught people in America after his resurrection. That may be of no consequence to you, but its veracity is the spirit-revealed foundation of my faith in Jesus Christ. 

Thanks for your reply. While I have engaged and bought scores of books on LDS doctrine, I have never engaged in any discussion, disagreement, or argument about the historicity and nature of the Book of Mormon. I own not being a fan of either the D&C and the POGP. I have read them all over and over. I think the Book of Mormon is very precious to most members of the LDS church. I try to avoid any and all discussions of it because I don't want to be offensive and their beliefs about it don't offend me. I hope that makes sense.

I will however in this case repeat that I believe I could never learn the core foundational beliefs of the LDS church by studying only the Book of Mormon. If you believe they are in there, as you do I have no need to debate that with you because I clearly understand differences in Scriptural interpretation and hermeneutics - even within faiths - never mind between faiths. Believe me on that one. You interpret a verse in the Book of Mormon to be a validation of a current LDS belief about the pre-existence. Ok! At the same time, I can't find it. OK. To be fair, I also don't find validations of LDS beliefs in the Bible like you do either. To be really fair, I also don't find, as do many Fundamentalist non-LDS Christians the contradictions to LDS beliefs in the Bible that they do in order to rant and rail against Mormonism (generically). I am more likely to take them on for their conclusions than I am you for yours. I appreciate your response to me. Thanks.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok here is the difference between you and me.

You believe in "accuracy" which is unknowable because all we have is how things APPEAR to humans.

I would never ever use that word, because it implies we can somehow get outside our own brains to what is "real", and therefore measure "accuracy" by comparing the statement with the alleged "reality" through "evidence".  

But still all we have as reality is what our very limited brains tell us!

What color are gamma rays?  Does that question even make sense?

I think in terms of paradigms because all we get is guesses and theories and hunches about "reality"

What WORKS BEST to get what we want?

There us no way to measure "accuracy" until one gets outside a human brain!  All evidence gives us is a temporary theory at best.

Accuracy was probably a poor choice of words.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, helix said:


Yet you said:
 

You are right.  I guess I was focused more on just clarification.  Maybe Elder Holland doesn't have anything to apologize for when using a violent metaphors against the LGBT community, one that is frequently targeted by gun violence.  I should have left that totally up to an apostle to decide if that was appropriate or not.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Did he tell you this in person?

Yep.

In my conscience.  Even you have one. 🤪  ;).  Sure it evolved too, the biggest demonstration of pragmatic truth there is.

HOW God does stuff is his business, but I am sure He is Pragmatist Number One!

Start the world, put it on the back burner for a few million years, let it cook, don't mess with it unless it's boiling over.  Oh! We need to add a little water and more salt??  Easy! Tweak the moon a little?  Where did I put that asteroid? Here it is! Toss that into the soup!

Yep those human bodies should be ready for you Michael, in just 6 million years or so.

Get your bags packed, or you might be late!  ;)

Can either of us prove either paradigm? Of course not, on either side! 

We both have HOPE FOR THINGS UNSEEN!

 

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Accuracy was probably a poor choice of words.

Not really.  Nothing else works either, it is the whole paradigm that we can get out of the human brain to "reality" through "evidence" that is the problem.

Pragmatic paradigms yes, "reality" beyond that, that we can know?

Impossible.

We can't know what we can't know.

It has to do with logic and language, not "reality". There's no other way to say it

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your reply. While I have engaged and bought scores of books on LDS doctrine, I have never engaged in any discussion, disagreement, or argument about the historicity and nature of the Book of Mormon. I own not being a fan of either the D&C and the POGP. I have read them all over and over. I think the Book of Mormon is very precious to most members of the LDS church. I try to avoid any and all discussions of it because I don't want to be offensive and their beliefs about it don't offend me. I hope that makes sense.

I will however in this case repeat that I believe I could never learn the core foundational beliefs of the LDS church by studying only the Book of Mormon. If you believe they are in there, as you do I have no need to debate that with you because I clearly understand differences in Scriptural interpretation and hermeneutics - even within faiths - never mind between faiths. Believe me on that one. You interpret a verse in the Book of Mormon to be a validation of a current LDS belief about the pre-existence. Ok! At the same time, I can't find it. OK. To be fair, I also don't find validations of LDS beliefs in the Bible like you do either. To be really fair, I also don't find, as do many Fundamentalist non-LDS Christians the contradictions to LDS beliefs in the Bible that they do in order to rant and rail against Mormonism (generically). I am more likely to take them on for their conclusions than I am you for yours. I appreciate your response to me. Thanks.

Yet you make uninformed statements about the Book of Mormon such as the one to which I have responded, and then double down on them. They are not my opinions. They are plainly in the text.  For example, that you don’t see pre-existence suggests to me you have never read Alma 13.

That you don’t see priesthood authorized baptisms suggests you have not read the account of Jesus’ ministry to the Nephites. It is the first thing he taught them.

I don’t mean to be contentious or critical, but sometimes your comments and questions make me think you may know LDS history, but not LDS doctrine. Please do not stop asking, though. It is a good thing. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yet you make uninformed statements about the Book of Mormon such as the one to which I have responded, and then double down on them. They are not my opinions. They are plainly in the text.  For example, that you don’t see pre-existence suggests to me you have never read Alma 13.

That you don’t see priesthood authorized baptisms suggests you have not read the account of Jesus’ ministry to the Nephites. It is the first thing he taught them.

I don’t mean to be contentious or critical, but sometimes your comments and questions make me think you may know LDS history, but not LDS doctrine. Please do not stop asking, though. It is a good thing. 

Hi my friend: I just re-read Alma 13 which I think of as the Melchizedek chapter, again. I see nothing in it at all to indicate a pre-existence as described by today's LDS church. I am not sure I am "doubling-down" on anything. I don't play cards and I don't gamble (part of our Word of Wisdom) so I am not exactly sure what that term means. I do see several allusions to "before the foundation of the world" in Alma 13 but that in no way suggests to me a pre-existence for anyone but God. He is the eternally pre-existent one, and yes I believe He laid out His plans for humans before founding the world. Before and after gets a bit confusing when talking about someone who is eternal. Eph 1 does the same thing. Unless I already believed it, and read it into the text, I don't see how either Alma or Paul are talking about a pre-existence for all humans as spirits. So I guess I am "doubling-down!"

Perhaps one difference in our understanding of Scriptures is that I don't see or read into any Scripture verses, messages, meanings, or references to any one church, except that of the community of believers world-wide. I have often said on this forum that I believe in priesthood authorized baptisms. Every church I have ever served in believes that. I believe it. The ministerial priesthood is granted to a few by God through church leaders. Those ministerial priesthood holders then perform baptisms in varying forms (method and mode) across Christianity, but only within their own sphere of authority. I believe in spheres of authority which are limited in scope. Christ has the highest authority - the only eternal high priest and king. Christians have a second type of priesthood - the royal priesthood of Peter. We struggle to know exactly what that means, but it is generally thought that it means we have authority to represent Christ and minister to folks as His ambassadors. The third is the ministerial priesthood granted by Christ through elders in individual Christian groups. I have no way to know if that (differing groups) is what Christ intended, but that is certainly how it works now. I know of no exceptions. I don't think that authority is a lifetime deal. I believe it is for here and now and perhaps as long as one is considered worthy by the elders. Tell me, if you wish, how your interpretation of Christ's ministry of teaching to the Nephites, or to the Jews in Galilee differs from mine. When on earth as the physical visible representation of the Father, He granted authority to those who He chose to do so. Now that He is not here, He works through those who are His hands (elders, leaders, etc) and grants temporal authority to them and to others of His choosing. The ministerial authority however, always is from Christ via the Holy Spirit and the hands of humans. 

Our first bishop once came to visit us and told me that in the LDS church I outrank him in my home. Because I "preside" in our home - LDS or not. That stuck with me.

I will have to go back to get verse and line, but I don't believe Christ ever communicated to the Nephites that He was giving authority to them in an exclusive sense and then forever to no one else, or that they were the forerunners of the LDS church. I do not believe Christ had the LDS church in mind when ministering anywhere He ministered, or whenever He ministered. Not the LDS church, not the Mennonite church, or the Catholic church. If the Book of Mormon or the Bible are Scripture, then they are for all Christians everywhere.

In His ministry, did Christ have foreknowledge. Yes? Thats in Alma 13 I think. Even so, He scrupulously avoided referring to anything about the different denominations or groups that would one day exist within His church. The NT writers alluded to different problems and strengths in different local churches (Corinth, Laodecia, etc) so they gave differing advice, commendations, and recommendations to each. I think they would do the exact same thing if they were writing today to us in our different institutional churches.

I know LDS history pretty well. I claim that. I also believe that LDS history and the resultant identity informs its doctrinal formulation. I think that is self-evident. BTW, I also think it is self-evident in the Mennonite church and in most if not all other churches. Both internal and external forces inform the creation of doctrine, which is not in and of itself immutable. Just like the lived lives of individuals informs their beliefs, identity, and worldview, so it is with the church, or churches of this current dispensation. I am learning more about LDS doctrine all the time. I value that. As you know, and have at times been victim, I ask many questions. I keep asking them over and over until I understand them. I appreciate your last admonition - for me to keep asking. That is what I do!

This morning I had a long conversation with my native Spanish speaking friends here about the differences between madrugada, amanecer, and alborada. I need to understand the difference so I use the right word in the title of my third volume of my trilogy on Mexican religious history. I kept asking questions, until I understood. Of course, one or the other didn't agree on what another was telling me, so that made it hard.  So it is here on the forum! Take care.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We both have HOPE FOR THINGS UNSEEN!

Sometimes things unseen aren't so good. Remember good old Aeschylus?  He was minding his own business outdoors one fine day when an eagle dropped a turtle unseen on his bald head, thinking it a rock and stone-cold (pun intended) killed him. Greece lost a great war hero and one of their preeminent poets/playwrights. I don't know why I wrote that or why it came to my mind. I guess it was something unseen he wasn't hoping for! I think of that story (it seems true) often because we have lots of eagles and turtles where I live. I always wear a camouflage hat when I go out so my head doesn't get mistaken for a rock. Of course some people think I am as dumb as a rock or that my head is as hard as a rock! Oh never mind!

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I just re-read Alma 13 which I think of as the Melchizedek chapter, again. I see nothing in it at all to indicate a pre-existence as described by today's LDS church.

Verse 3

... called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God ..... holy calling being prepared from the fundation of the world

Repeated references to "from before the foundation of the world" meaning they existed BEFORE the earth was created.   I cannot see it any other way.  It seems totally obvious to me.

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...