Jump to content
Seriously No Politics √ó

More than One Way to Know the Church is True


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Wow, wikipedia, the fount of all knowledge! I am not Catholic; if I were on a Catholic forum, I would have posted the same post and asked the same questions as I did an hour or so ago of you. I do not understand how the idea of the keys in Matthew 16:19 got caught up in some type of priesthood as a means of authority in the gospel. My priest friend and I have had that conversation on our back patio. So yes, I am serious. I do a lot of joking, but I will usually attach an emoji in that regard. As you might suspect, I also ask a lot of questions to my Catholic, Pentecostal, and even Antiochan Orthodox, and Jewish friends. That is how I learn. I don't do it to be right or to prove anyone wrong. I do it to be informed, and in some cases to inform. For example, if I interpret Matt 16:19 differently from my LDS and Catholic friends, they might want to understand why I do that. I did it earlier today because you asked me what I didn't understand. I decided to tell you both what and why I don't understand the linkage between a special priesthood and keys. And yes, I am serious . . . as you are, at least most of the time at least! ūüėĄ

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

@Navidad

Early in the Anabaptist movement, even if one had been baptized as a baby, one had to be re-baptized to become an Anabaptist.

Exclusive authority?

Why the change, and who had the authority to make the change in Doctrine?

Incidentally here is an interesting article from a Mennonite preacher

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thirdwaychristians/2021/09/the-third-way-christian/

 

You added the article after I replied. After a quick read, I would only disagree with one thing in it. I would not characterize that the Anabaptist restorationist movement broke off from the Protestant reformation. I see them as basically two separate movements that grew separately to where they are today. I like his distinction between the two concepts of Evangelicalism. I think that was well said. I have preached in Mennonite churches in Ontario, but I don't know either the author or his church.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Somewhere, the Saints began teaching that keys are special authority given to specific individuals to "seal" something in heaven because of their individual action at some point in time.

Nah, Peter had Catholic/Mormon/Christian keys long before we came along.

But of course ours are a restoration of Jesus' church. ;)

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't usually read Elder McConkie anymore since so many LDS folks have told me not to use his book as a guide to LDS doctrine.

They should not brush aside so facilely the witness of this remarkable Apostle. To do so is to deprive one of hearing this, his final and most beautiful testimony of Jesus shortly before passing. 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I do not understand how the idea of the keys in Matthew 16:19 got caught up in some type of priesthood as a means of authority in the gospel.

Did you check all the biblical references in the wikipedia article?

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

They should not brush aside so facilely the witness of this remarkable Apostle. To do so is to deprive one of hearing this, his final and most beautiful testimony of Jesus shortly before passing. 

 

I am not always a fan of Elder McConkie's interpretations, but I happened to attend that conference.

That testimony was electric.   He was and is and will always be a great great man, and emissary of the Savior.   There are no words to explain what it was like to be there.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not always a fan of Elder McConkie's interpretations, but I happened to attend that conference.

That testimony was electric.   He was and is and will always be a great great man, and emissary of the Savior.   There are no words to explain what it was like to be there.

Sister Gui and I saw this testimony on TV with our kids. Deeply moving. I think we commented that this might be his last.

Link to comment
On 3/20/2023 at 12:11 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Now we know Yahweh had a body, had a wife

According to what Joseph Smith wrote, Heavenly Father has wives.

D&C 132:1,29-31 

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know 
and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and 
Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines"

"Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith 
the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne. Abraham received promises 
concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins‚ÄĒfrom whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph -¬†
which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of 
the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable 
as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them. This promise 
is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is 
the continuation of
the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself".

It is written that wives and concubines were also afforded to many others of God's servants.

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many
others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time
; and in nothing did they sin save in those 
things which they received not of me" (D&C 132:38).

Link to comment
3 hours ago, theplains said:

According to what Joseph Smith wrote, Heavenly Father has wives.

D&C 132:1,29-31 

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know 
and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and 
Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines"

"Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith 
the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne. Abraham received promises 
concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins‚ÄĒfrom whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph -¬†
which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of 
the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable 
as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them. This promise 
is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is 
the continuation of
the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself".

It is written that wives and concubines were also afforded to many others of God's servants.

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many
others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time
; and in nothing did they sin save in those 
things which they received not of me" (D&C 132:38).

That's quite the leap.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Emily said:

Funny you mention that. Physics and the study of invisible particles were one of the first indications to me that empiricism was a philosophy that could bind and blind a person if they actually adhered to it's principles.  If everyone only believed in things that could be perceived with their five senses, no one would have ever developed the tools to measure or the language to describe the many artifacts of our physical world which can't be known by any of our senses. So much of science deals with "invisible until we have the right tools" that I'm not sure modern science would exist if men weren't willing to imagine the possibility of things existing that can't be seen.

Using instruments to enhance human perception is just still part of human perception, like wearing reading glasses.

The spirit, like the conscience, is also human perception

We cannot know what we cannot know, or perceive

It's as simple as that

We see through a mirror darkly, but then face to face.

What is that mirror? Human perception!  The more we study anything, the more we see the limits of our own perception staring back at us, indeed through a "mirror" which distorts everything

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature

 

"Rorty argues that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is. In this he continues a certain controversial Anglophone tradition, which builds upon the work of philosophers such as Quine, Sellars, and Donald Davidson. Rorty opts out of the traditional objective/subjective dialogue in favor of a communal version of truth. For him, "true" is simply an honorific knowers bestow on claims, asserting them as what "we" want to say about a particular matter.

Rorty explains how philosophical paradigm shifts and their associated philosophical "problems" can be considered the result of the new metaphors, vocabularies, and mistaken linguistic associations which are necessarily a part of those new paradigms."

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That's quite the leap.

Not sure I understand your position.

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:
46 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That's quite the leap.

Not sure I understand your position.

One jumps from OK for David and Solomon to have multiple wives to God has multiple wives?

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

"Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith 
the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne. Abraham received promises 
concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins‚ÄĒfrom whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph -¬†
which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of 
the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable 
as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them. This promise 
is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is 
the continuation of
the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself".

Having spirit children <> polygamy

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

One jumps from OK for David and Solomon to have multiple wives to God has multiple wives?

Sect 132 says David and others are now exalted ?

I will look it up.

See immediately below

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

See immediately above

Sho'nuff: 

DC 132

Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. 38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."

If the qualification for godhood permits polygamy for these, why not Jehovah himself?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sho'nuff:  DC 132

Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. 38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."

If the qualification for godhood permits polygamy for these, why not Jehovah himself?

Well the Book of Mormon (which is very anti-David) asserts that polygamy is abominable unless expressly commanded for limited reasons. 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Is there more than one way to know the church isn't true? 

Of course.  There are many many ways to even define truth- as we have discussed MANY times, years ago.

Follow your conscience as I know you do. 

Yes we call that way of thinking "postmodernism", as you well know.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Well the Book of Mormon (which is very anti-David) asserts that polygamy is abominable unless expressly commanded for limited reasons. 

Ok fine.

So maybe Jehovah got permission, IFF he was commanded to do so.

But that is none of our business until we get into the "For Exalted Mormons Only" blog.  :)

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

See immediately below

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

See immediately above

I'm stuck in a loop.  How do I get out?

I think I understand what is meant by "one eternal round" now.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I'm stuck in a loop.  How do I get out?

I think I understand what is meant by "one eternal round" now.

Cute!

Essentially I modified the information in one post with another post, since it had been several minutes- and I thought that someone might have aready read post 1- so I made post 2 rather than editing post 1

Then I encouraged anybody who cared to note the other post as well, to hopefully make it into one unified post.

But as usual no one cared or certainly did not respond to the points I thought I had made.  But as a former bishop I am used to being ignored. ;)

Sniff.  ;)

 

 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Cute!

Essentially I modified the information in one post with another post, since it had been several minutes- and I thought that someone might have aready read post 1- so I made post 2 rather than editing post 1

Then I encouraged anybody who cared to note the other post as well, to hopefully make it into one unified post.

But as usual no one cared or certainly did not respond to the points I thought I had made.  But as a former bishop I am used to being ignored. ;)

Sniff.  ;)

 

 

I like them anyway. 

I think we have a classic "prophetic accomodation" problem when it comes to epistemology, where God makes an accomodation for His church in a specific time and place, but conditions change and the accomodation is no longer so accomodating but is sustained by the force of tradition. And I think we have a Churchwide (or at least Anglophone-wide) tradition of the sort of Scottish commonsense epistemology that Joseph Smith lived with, which informed his and Brigham's and everyone else's views on the nature of knowledge and truth. And that commonsense epistemology is more or less the representational theory of perception and the correspondence theory of truth (from which, I am pleased to say, I have finally escaped - by all accounts I'm a coherentist at this point and trending towards full pragmatist.) 

The funny thing is that we've had Alma 32 basically the whole time and it shows the way out. You know it's good, so you keep going with it until eventually you emerge into a perfect knowledge. In the meantime, you don't claim perfect knowledge, the only thing you "know" is your own experience. That chapter actually cuts against Joseph's expressed epistemology to a degree that I can't credit him as its author, not if I want to be a good textual critic¬†ūüėČ. Joseph acted like a man who had seen God face to face. He talked like it. All you had to do was ask and act in faith and by George the heavens might as well be open now as any other time. Why would he think any different, it had worked for him! But we still get this seed of an epistemology which we would need later when things weren't as simple.¬†

Nevertheless, because Joseph and Brigham started it out that way, we still have a tradition of talking a big talk on truth and knowability in correspondence and representationalist terms.

Link to comment
On 3/22/2023 at 4:23 PM, OGHoosier said:

Nevertheless, because Joseph and Brigham started it out that way, we still have a tradition of talking a big talk on truth and knowability in correspondence and representationalist terms.

I think lots of people get stuck at that point, because that position has been around even before Descartes, and it's part of western Civilization.

To me coherence theory really is almost indistinguishable from anti realism since coherence implies structuralism: all knowledge is coherently based on human thought.

But the switch toward pragmatic anti- realism is inevitable, I think. It just takes a while to get it and absorb it

I mean when even Oprah understands " my truth" vs " your truth" and you hear kids using those terms, I give it a max of two generations before people stop making fun of visions and religious experience.

Dualism is just plain not justifiable intellectually anymore imo.

We can only know what we can know.

It's a tautology and there's no getting around it!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41684439#:~:text=antirealist holds that while the,commitment to those truth conditions.

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
×
×
  • Create New...