More than One Way to Know the Church is True

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You seem in a grumpy mood! I asked the OP what he means by "true." Isnt' that philosophical enough a question? I was just making a light-hearted suggestion given that the Mennonite church meets most of your criteria for what you were looking for! To answer your question - I attend whatever church meets our needs for worship, fellowship, and ministry and is close to where we live. The denomination is irrelevant.

Sorry since you did not address your comment, I took it to be addressed to me, the only responder

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I attend whatever church meets our needs for worship, fellowship, and ministry and is close to where we live

None of those apply to what church I would attend.

I go to church to teach and be taught more about God and my chosen paradigm.

I think I could not "worship" or learn in say, Pentecostalism.

Not my thing.  I am not interested in "fellowship", I have a social life.

For me ministry cannot be separated from Doctrine.

Geography is irrelevant to me in 2023, we have Zoom and television evangelists if I wanted that.

Edited March 10, 2023 by mfbukowski
Fix typo

[Grug the Neanderthal]

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Geography is irrelevant to me in 2923

I didn’t realize that you were from the future. Does everyone drive a flying car in 2923 or has society completely imploded and everyone lives like a third world country?

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I didn’t realize that you were from the future. Does everyone drive a flying car in 2923 or has society completely imploded and everyone lives like a third world country?

No. Just Los Angeles

Kind of both.

Edited March 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Smiley McGee]

error

Edited March 11, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[OGHoosier]

On 3/10/2023 at 3:37 PM, mfbukowski said:

No. Just Los Angeles

Kind of both.

Did my mission a few years ago in Los Angeles. Felt like we were gonna see flying cars at the Auto Show. Worked in areas that couldn't afford enough cars imo.

I like Tarik LaCour, he's always an interesting voice to watch. And it was a major philosophical coup (at least for Philosophy of Religion Twitter) when Emerson Green (the atheist interviewing LaCour and one of the more prominent Philosophy of Religion Twitter atheists) freely admitted after a conversation with Tarik that Latter-day Saint "theology" can defeat the problem of evil as presented in its traditional objective formulations. Big W for nerds like me.

@Hamilton Porter, the early Saints saw miracles, but the scriptures themselves anticipate the idea of non-God forces working wonders and mighty works. John anticipates interaction with other spirits when he tells us to "try the spirits". You do need the Spirit to convince your heart that the marvel you're seeing is good.

[Hamilton Porter]

20 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

John anticipates interaction with other spirits when he tells us to "try the spirits

Which verse?

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Which verse?

4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Read full chapter

1 John 4:1 in all English translations

[Hamilton Porter]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Read full chapter

1 John 4:1 in all English translations

Oh it's in one of the epistles. If we read on:

4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. ² By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,

I think early modern saints have this in spades.

 

 

[Emily]

On 3/9/2023 at 10:28 AM, Smiley McGee said:

I guess I’m doubtful of the role of rationalism in the acquisition of religious belief.

I think you may be confusing empiricism and rationalism.

My belief that the Book of Mormon is of ancient origin is rational. There is a great deal of empirical evidence to support this claim. Rationally, I note that there is as much evidence for it as many other ancient documents that are deemed authentic, so I accept this claim on a logical basis.

But the Book of Mormon has a problem with it's provenance.

Had Joseph dug it up in front of several witnesses, then let the plates sit for several decades in the hands of scholars who spent more time arguing over who would get the credit than actually trying to translate it, it's provenance wouldn't be in question, nor would it's authenticity.

Joseph Smith brought an angel into the story, however, and that complicates matters. So here is the problem:

Empirical Fact: The Book of Mormon exists. Question: How did we get it?

At this point, if you are an empiricist, haven't personally seen an angel, and really don't believe anything that you haven't personally experienced with your own five senses then you can not rationally accept Joseph's Smith's story. You might accept the book is of ancient origin but angels are impossible, therefore any other origin theory, no matter how improbable, is a better explanation. If none of the current origin theories can fully explain the Book of Mormon, then someone will eventually figure it out.

I'm not an empiricist. I'm willing to accept, within specific parameters, what other people say they have experienced as being potentially true. At least enough for further investigation, if the claim interests me.

As such, while I may be skeptical, I don't start my reasoning process with the premise that angels are impossible. So when I examine the various origin theories for the Book of Mormon, and find that all of the theories not only fail, but offer little hope that any of the critics will ever provide a better explanation, I am left with Joseph's Smith's story, however improbable, as the best explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon. 

Let me reiterate, this is not because I'm any less rational in my thinking, it's because I'm not an empiricist. It's best not to confuse the two. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hamilton Porter]

On 3/10/2023 at 1:22 PM, mfbukowski said:

what do LDS think of Mennonites/Baptists etc

Mennonites are nice people.

I served my mission in Long Island, and I approached them while in my car. I think they were from Kentucky. They wished me "good luck on your mission."

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Mennonites are nice people.

I served my mission in Long Island, and I approached them while in my car. I think they were from Kentucky. They wished me "good luck on your mission."

I agree they are nice!

Our friend Navidad is EXTREMELY nice, and I was ribbing him about his perennial question.  Yes, we insist we are the only TRUE and Living church, that takes some 'splainin' for Mennonites !

For anyone in fact!

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree they are nice!

Our friend Navidad is EXTREMELY nice, and I was ribbing him about his perennial question.  Yes, we insist we are the only TRUE and Living church, that takes some 'splainin' for Mennonites !

For anyone in fact!

 

Thanks! But do you really really really have to then insist that I and my church, or every other established Christian church and all their members are FALSE and dead? Can an equally EXTREMELY nice guy like you understand that a logical conclusion based on your premise as insisted, is that all other churches, together with their members are FALSE and dead? In order to get out of that logical fallacy (a claim for which you cannot produce evidence), don't you have to insist on a strongly nuanced definition of that "TRUE and living church" term? Without a nuanced understanding of D&C 1:30, doesn't the very statement require all other churches and members of other churches to be FALSE and dead? You are the philosopher . . . I am simply the EXTREMELY nice garlic grower who keeps asking about it because I can't get my head around 🙃 the implications of that claim. 😀 My experience is that I am not spiritually FALSE and dead! So where does that leave us as TRUE and living philosopher and FALSE and dead campesino?

Ha! I knew Jerry Falwell Sr. pretty well. I attended many of his debates with more "liberal" or mainlines critics of his in the late 70s. Much, but not all of that criticism was warranted. His favorite thing however, was to start out a debate by saying "I'm just an old country Southern boy . . . I don't understand all the big words you smart people use!" "Be kind to this simple ol' preacher!" Beware to those who fell for that! Of course he was extremely well-prepared for anything he heard from them. He had heard it 100 times before!

So, beware of the one who grows garlic! Something may not smell right! He is probably just gonna keep on askin' them thar questions that his simple country mind and his 3rd grade eddicacion don't understand! Ha! Really, I did go to third grade! Three times in fact! 🙄

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Mennonites are nice people.

I served my mission in Long Island, and I approached them while in my car. I think they were from Kentucky. They wished me "good luck on your mission."

Wow, I have lived around Mennonites my entire life, was licensed a Mennonite minister and served as director of a Mennonite K-12 school! I never met a Mennonite from Kentucky! Having said that, I always wish my LDS missionary friends good luck! I even give them rides when their rides forget about picking them up!

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks! But do you really really really have to then insist that I and my church, or every other established Christian church and all their members are FALSE and dead?

Isn't this a bit extreme?  Do we really say that?  Every "Christian church and all their members are FALSE and dead"?  That's not what I understand the church to be teaching.  All churches have some truth, and I'd say that even the Latter-day Saints don't have "all" truth yet.  

Remember what Joseph Smith taught:

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'"  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.316)

We should be gathering all truth from wherever it can be found.  Or are you referring to the fact that he didn't include Mennonites in his list?   

The statement about the "only true and living church" was qualified:  "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually"  (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30)  

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow, I have lived around Mennonites my entire life, was licensed a Mennonite minister and served as director of a Mennonite K-12 school! I never met a Mennonite from Kentucky! Having said that, I always wish my LDS missionary friends good luck! I even give them rides when their rides forget about picking them up!

It was a long time ago. They were on vacation on Long Island.

I don't know much about Mennonites. They're Amish lite in my imagination.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks! But do you really really really have to then insist that I and my church, or every other established Christian church and all their members are FALSE and dead? Can an equally EXTREMELY nice guy like you understand that a logical conclusion based on your premise as insisted, is that all other churches, together with their members are FALSE and dead? In order to get out of that logical fallacy (a claim for which you cannot produce evidence), don't you have to insist on a strongly nuanced definition of that "TRUE and living church" term? Without a nuanced understanding of D&C 1:30, doesn't the very statement require all other churches and members of other churches to be FALSE and dead? You are the philosopher . . . I am simply the EXTREMELY nice garlic grower who keeps asking about it because I can't get my head around 🙃 the implications of that claim. 😀 My experience is that I am not spiritually FALSE and dead! So where does that leave us as TRUE and living philosopher and FALSE and dead campesino?

This shows no understanding of my position which we have discussed now for several years, demonstrating that it was all in vain and a waste of time.

I am a universalists, the best in a system of paradigms does not imply anything about the others, all humanity will have an opportunity to become exalted AFTER DEATH, regardless of their positions here, unless they are part of the set of perhaps 5 people who qualify for eternal darkness.

There are no logical fallacies in my views, there are plenty of true churches including yours, but we are the only ones who have an open canon, making it "living". Truth is not fossilized, and something true today maybe false tomorrow. Linguistic tricks are not "true". 

All my assertions are backed by experiential evidence, as is science.

They are all true in the same way that believing in "inalienable rights" is a true belief.

No, you cannot get your head around it, that is not my fault.

That's ok, you will have a choice AFTER you CAN get your head around it, on the other side.

I wish we could communicate here, but I guess it is impossible.

You and your churches are neither dead nor false, they just retain ancient concepts which are no longer seen as logically tenable in today's culture.

That has nothing to do with God.

We are discussing philosophies of men.

God is unspeakable, but we try

[Hamilton Porter]

On 3/14/2023 at 5:57 PM, mfbukowski said:

Truth is not fossilized, and something true today maybe false tomorrow.

Would the Family Proclamation fall under this?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Would the Family Proclamation fall under this?

As in possible that it might change or for sure it will?

[Hamilton Porter]

On 3/13/2023 at 8:02 PM, Emily said:

I'm not an empiricist. I'm willing to accept, within specific parameters, what other people say they have experienced as being potentially true. At least enough for further

I was an empiricist because I thought statistics was easier than calculus. In my undergrad, I studied economics and economic theory was all calculus. And a bunch of convoluted equations a that.

Then I went to grad school in applied math, and realized equations for nature were beautiful and elegant. God clearly didn't make math for economics.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

As in possible that it might change or for sure it will?

I want to know whether it can under his epistemological system.

I think it's possible, but who knows.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I want to know whether it can under his epistemological system.

I think it's possible, but who knows.

I cannot imagine as we grow in knowledge and understanding (by no means guaranteed, but hopefully we will manage even if it takes the millennium to open us up enough) that prophets won’t find better ways to express God’s truth, so in my view at least the language will change… whether that means nuanced change or massive, foundational changes I have no sense of direction…but my guess is there will be significant changes.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Would the Family Proclamation fall under this?

Yes it could/would imo.

But if it did that does not allow, morally, IMO for one half of humanity, the ability to KNOW the other half of humanity, and that is what marriage is all about, imo.

One becomes able to intimately know the other half, and all the psychological differences between us. I believe one cannot learn to love an "Other"- as one's self-if there are no "Others" , because we are all the same.

We could not love "others" as we love ourselves so intimately, if both sexes are the same.

But of course it COULD change, and indeed might.

 

 

[theplains]

On 3/7/2023 at 1:27 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

This is in addition to our own experience with the commandments (7:17) and the witness of the spirit (14:26). I hope we pay attention to the many different ways we learn in our Come Follow Me study this year.

A member of Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam (with the 'word' or 'seed' of their own religion) 
could try the experiment of Alma 32:28-39 and happily choose to remain a Buddhist, Hindu, 
or Muslim instead of following Christ.

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, theplains said:

A member of Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam (with the 'word' or 'seed' of their own religion) 
could try the experiment of Alma 32:28-39 and happily choose to remain a Buddhist, Hindu, 
or Muslim instead of following Christ.

Good. You're starting to understand.

That's where they need to be for now.  I used to be a Buddhist because I really needed to follow my own meditative spirit.

It was the best thing I could have done in my progression toward God.

It is still a part of me.

Do you believe in the Bible?

How do you know it is more than the stories an philosophies of men?

Why are you NOT an atheist?

Because of an Alma or Moroni 10 experience?

Or perhaps you have just accepted what you were taught without questions?