Exaltation for single women

[Hamilton Porter]

19 minutes ago, manol said:

 

I agree with you.  Not because that's what is clearly taught in the scriptures nor because I've somehow "figured out" how it can all work out for everyone, but because the impression I get from those who have been to the other side and lived to tell the tale is that the difference between the very best of here and what is common There is HUGE, even if the specific details which might apply to this thread are not described.

Here is a twenty-minute compilation video that might shift one's perception just a little bit:

 

NDEs don't match anyone's theology.

 

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, manol said:

 

I agree with you.  Not because that's what is clearly taught in the scriptures nor because I've somehow "figured out" how it can all work out for everyone, but because the impression I get from those who have been to the other side and lived to tell the tale is that the difference between very best of here and what is pervasive There is HUGE, even if the details are not described.

Here is a twenty-minute compilation video that might shift one's perception just a little bit:

 

I firmly believe God has great love for us as I've felt that love specifically in 3 moments and I see so much good in humanity because of what I experience often with other people, but I'm not good with some of the ideas in the video like there is no judgment and no evil inside others. While I think we can't judge people well without knowledge of it all there have been times when people have done horrible, horrible things to others. I'm not one who thinks people should suffer for what they have done for eternity, but I have a hard time believing that the love in the afterlife just erases truly evil hearts upon death.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Rain

[manol]

4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

NDEs don't match anyone's theology.

Alma the Younger's NDE aligns pretty well with LDS theology.  See for example this paper by @Kevin Christensen:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol2/iss1/2/

That being said, in general I agree with your observation.  Imo that situation says more about the fallibility of theologies than about the fallibility of near-death experiences:

"Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject." - Joseph Smith

Edited to add:

@Rain wrote:  "I firmly believe God has great love for us as I've felt that love specifically in 3 moments and I see so much good in humanity because of what I experience often with other people, but I'm not good with some of the ideas in the video like there is no judgment and no evil inside others. While I think we can't judge people well without knowledge of it all there have been times when people have done horrible, horrible things to others. I'm not one who thinks people should suffer for what they have done for eternity, but I have a hard time believing that the love in the afterlife just erases truly evil hearts upon death." 

There definitely seems to be a significant gap between religion and near-death experiences when it comes to judgment, the consequences of misdeeds, what can and cannot be healed, and the conditions for healing.  

Let me ask you this (and I'm not really expecting an answer; just using a question to make my point):  How well has "seeing evil inside of others" (<- that's a paraphrase not a quote) served humanity?  And, how well has "seeing evil inside of others" played out in the microcosm that is the message board? 

I do not know how to reconcile the two paradigms.  I have "picked a lane" and it's not the religious one, but that doesn't mean I disrespect religion in general or the LDS religion in particular.

Edited March 29, 2023 by manol

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh I have.

Meh.

Same old..... jello.

Ok.  What have you read?  I think he turns your paradigm, and Rorty's, upside down.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Alma the Younger's NDE aligns pretty well with LDS theology.  See for example this paper by @Kevin Christensen:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol2/iss1/2/

That being said, in general I agree with you.  Imo that situation says more about the fallibility of theologies than about the fallibility of near-death experiences. 

"Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject." - Joseph Smith

Edited to add:

@Rain wrote:  "I firmly believe God has great love for us as I've felt that love specifically in 3 moments and I see so much good in humanity because of what I experience often with other people, but I'm not good with some of the ideas in the video like there is no judgment and no evil inside others. While I think we can't judge people well without knowledge of it all there have been times when people have done horrible, horrible things to others. I'm not one who thinks people should suffer for what they have done for eternity, but I have a hard time believing that the love in the afterlife just erases truly evil hearts upon death." 

There definitely seems to be a significant gap between religion and near-death experiences when it comes to judgment, the consequences of misdeeds, what can and cannot be healed, and the conditions for healing.  

Let me ask you this (and I'm not really expecting an answer; just using a question to make my point):  How well has "seeing evil inside of others" (<- that's a paraphrase not a quote) served humanity?  And, how well has "seeing evil inside of others" played out in the microcosm that is the message board? 

I really don't understand what point you're trying to make.  

I'm not sure I was actually trying to make a point with my post.  Mostly just I have doubts with NDE experiences that would put a truly evil person in a big bundle of love with the people they incredibly harmed.  Don't get me wrong, I think everyone has hurt someone in some way.  I think that there are mental conditions and life experiences where people wouldn't normally do what they do.  But I do think there are people who have gone far past that even while not judging any single person of that since I am fully aware I don't have God's understanding of them.  

1 hour ago, manol said:

I do not know how to reconcile the two paradigms.  I have "picked a lane" and it's not the religious one, but that doesn't mean I disrespect religion in general or the LDS religion in particular.

I don't really see this as a religious thing.  More of a physics thing.  Light and darkness.  Or maybe black holes? (I really don't know anything about them.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, manol said:

Let me ask you this (and I'm not really expecting an answer; just using a question to make my point):  How well has "seeing evil inside of others" (<- that's a paraphrase not a quote) served humanity?  And, how well has "seeing evil inside of others" played out in the microcosm that is the message board? 

The inability to see evil in others can also lead to pain and tragedy.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/29/2023 at 12:12 PM, Teancum said:

Ok.  What have you read?  I think he turns your paradigm, and Rorty's, upside down.

UH, I think not.  

I don't think any of the guys you mention publish in serious academic philosophical journals.   They never try to overcome the objections I have discussed with you as far as I know.  They just spout the usual .......green jello.

I have read YEARS worth of material.  I finished all the course work for a master's but then I realized that Wittgenstein really did "SOLVE" philosophy, and I did not want to get stuck teaching Aristotle 101 for the rest of my life.

This is an excellent introduction, but it is a little technical, but if you really want to "get it" as a mini-course it's all here, ending with Wittgenstein, who is almost impossible to read unless you have a background.

But suffice it to say that Rorty was heavily influenced by Wittgenstein - nearly all he say is BASED on Wittgenstein.  I think I might start a thread on this actually.

If you have real questions, please pm me or start your own thread.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-wittgenstein-might-solve-both-philosophy-and-quantum-physics

Here also is a talk from James Faulconer, from the BYU philosophy department who concludes that language is the key to all of it.  He is a phenomenologist which is effectively also "pragmatism" in that both schools of philosophy place human experience at the basis of what we CALL "reality".  The part about language cuts in around minute 30- all before that is pretty much history of the problem.  

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/QgrcJHsHlmlsdzWlwljWXvCPjHCtlrvqtRB?projector=1

I think if you REALLY want to understand those opposing your position, you should read and understand both of these.

It's going to take a few hours to get through it.   EVERYBODY at Claremont are into process philosophy, which comes down the to the same conclusions.

The key to both is that all we can describe in language is--- more language.   We have the experience of driving down the road, rounding a curve and seeing an enormously "beautiful" vista stretching out.   All that we can say is "WOW!"  Why it is beautiful cannot be captured in words.  Again- like describing yellow to a blind person who has never seen it before. 

Its reality IS the experience

That is the thesis of both Wittgenstein and Faulconer and all the philosophers both of them know.

This is not some silly Utah farmer talk trying to make up a basis of religion- this is ALL real philosophy acknowledged by everyone as "important philosophy", regadless of the few, now seen as old fashioned crackpots, who still embrace positivism.

I also want to alert a couple of others to this article and talk.   I suppose it ought to be it's own thread, but I'm too busy right now. 

 Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

@OGHoosier @manol @pogi  @Calm

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I would like to add this quote from the first article I mentioned above, about Wittgenstein.

Decide for your selves if this sound familiar- like the Rorty quote I often use

Quote

 

What Wittgenstein understood is that you can’t use words to explain representation, because words are representations themselves. It would be like trying to travel outside the Universe to show somebody what the Universe is – a feat that’s both impossible and unnecessary. A sentence shows what it means by its own sense. Thus, if I say ‘Jenny has an apple,’ I do not have to explain how the words ‘Jenny’ and ‘apple’ represent physical objects in the world; nor do I have to explain what ‘has’ means. We mutually understand that, if Jenny is right there and she has an orange in her hand, the proposition is false. It shows its sense. There is nothing more to say about it, as long as we both understand the rules of the language.

Thus, Wittgenstein, even in his early work, suggests that the realist versus anti-realist debate is meaningless because both sides are trying to say things that are only showable. From this early Wittgensteinian perspective, a mathematical equation – in fact, any equation, including the ones governing quantum mechanics – is like a photograph of reality. Like photographs, we do not need anyone to interpret its meaning as realist or anti-realist. We do not need a Copenhagen or a many-worlds to indicate the sense of the equation to us, because it is already as apparent as it is ever going to be. To ask what the wavefunction represents is like asking what Michelangelo’s statue of David or Van Gogh’s painting The Starry Night represents: any explanation beyond the mere facts is insufficient and subjective.

 

And we are trying to explain if or why single women can or cannot be exalted??

We don't have the words to even understand the existing rule- "any explanation beyond the mere facts is insufficient and subjective."

And Jesus forgave those who were crucifying him saying "they know not what they do", and yes, I bet he was waiting for those to enter his kingdom with a huge hug.

Edited March 29, 2023 by mfbukowski

[manol]

19 hours ago, Rain said:

Mostly just I have doubts with NDE experiences that would put a truly evil person in a big bundle of love with the people they incredibly harmed. 

I have never come across a near-death experience account wherein something like that happens.

My understanding is that there is a life review whose purpose seems to be education rather than punishment, in which the person undergoing the life review very vividly re-lives their life not only from their own point of view, but also from the point of view of everyone who was affected by their actions, both good and bad.  Here is a link to a short clip wherein a near-death experience researcher describes someone's life review, as well as a link to a compilation video of life-review accounts:

NDE Researcher Kenneth Ring: The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated - YouTube (under 4 minutes)

NDE COMPILATION - About the life review and the ripple effect of our actions - YouTube (about 20 minutes)

My understanding is that there are areas devoted to healing wherein the person takes as much time as they need before they decide to move on, and that all wounds are healed. There are also temporary “hells”, and the way out of them seems to be to pray for help.  My guess is that if someone did not want contact with another person, there would be zero coercion. 

 

19 hours ago, Rain said:

I am fully aware I don't have God's understanding of them. 

 I think people forget that and tend to think they are "judging righteous judgment" when they simply do not have enough information and understanding to do so.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by manol

[nuclearfuels]

On 3/27/2023 at 11:22 AM, telnetd said:

s this confirmation that the church still practices a form of polygamy, where single
women can be sealed to a deceased married men (who may have plural wives already)?

It's my understanding that:

1. during the Millenium and after, those who have passed on will be able to obtain ordinances completed on thier behalf (proxy) by living patrons in the Temple. 

2. during the Millenium and after, those who have passed on will be able to obtain ordinances on thier own behalf in the Temple due to the Resurrection which accompanies the Savior's Second Coming. 

3. Not sure polygamy is a part of this. The exception to the rule does not disprove the rule, meaning if the average case or 70%, 80%, 90% or more cases are non-polygamous, I'm not sure the outliers are representaitve of the doctrine.

[nuclearfuels]

On 3/27/2023 at 11:42 AM, blackstrap said:

Take a guess at how many single men have passed through mortality that could become worthy in time .

Take a guess at how many single women have passed through mortality that could become worthy in time .

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Take a guess at how many single women have passed through mortality that could become worthy in time .

99.99999999999....999%

It's more about the 5-10 individuals who have not done so.

Same for men.

You have a theophany, and then deny it.

Uh, not many!

It's gonna be not only a dark but lonely eternity to think about it.

Edited March 30, 2023 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

So virtually everyone is going to accept the gospel in the Spirit World?

[blackstrap]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So virtually everyone is going to accept the gospel in the Spirit World?

Ya, except that guy who cut me off in traffic yesterday. He is going permanently to hell!

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Ya, except that guy who cut me off in traffic yesterday. He is going permanently to hell!

I SAID I WAS SORRY!!!!!

[blackstrap]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I SAID I WAS SORRY!!!!!

I think   I MISINTERPRETED that one finger salute.

[Teancum]

On 3/28/2023 at 9:09 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Sam Harris is the worst.

I disagree. I find him pretty fair and pretty balanced. Listen to him.  Read his stuff. Not what others say and distort.

 

On 3/28/2023 at 9:09 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

 

 

He took advantage of the Islamophobia wave.

Really?  How so?

 

On 3/28/2023 at 9:09 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

He gained some religious Christian fans (in spite of his disdain for Christianity) because of it.

I cannot imagine he has a lot of believing Christian fans.

 

On 3/28/2023 at 9:09 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Now he is popular among neo-Nazis.

Ummm I don't think so.

On 3/28/2023 at 9:09 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the-new-atheists-merged-with-the-far-right-a-story-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/

 

[Teancum]

On 3/28/2023 at 10:38 PM, mfbukowski said:

His ethical theory is stone age. Seems he never even heard of compatiblism.  Same old stuff: no coherent epistimolgy. "It's all brain chemicals" -> of course what else would it be? What CAUSES the chemical reaction? Something "outside" your headLike maybe a bear or .... God?

He's in there with Hutchins, Dennett and the usual suspects.

Meh.

I find their arguments more compelling than your mish mush.  What books have you read by any of these?

[Teancum]

On 3/29/2023 at 3:05 AM, mfbukowski said:

Of course morals can be EXPLAINED by evolution: totally valid.  Same problem- God can create through evolution. 

Religionists have had to modify their beliefs significantly since science has shown biological evolution is really how we all got here.  If morals can evolve then we don't need a God for them.

On 3/29/2023 at 3:05 AM, mfbukowski said:

There's nothing in that statement that advances your case.

How so?

On 3/29/2023 at 3:05 AM, mfbukowski said:

You lay down assertions and never back them up with a coherent argument, like probably this one.

I feel the same about almost everyone of your posts. I find them totally incoherent and rambling.

On 3/29/2023 at 3:05 AM, mfbukowski said:

On what areas did Harris challenge Rorty?  Sorry but that typo destroys the meaning of the sentence:

"heci out the Moral Landscape."

Sorry.  The book the Moral Landscape.  By Sam Harris.  Check it out.  That will answer your question.

 

On 3/29/2023 at 3:05 AM, mfbukowski said:

 

Where are the flaws in my paradigm?  Paradigms are not "correct", that statement in itself shows you don't understand what they are.

Your approach is inconsistent IMO. Nothing is real or we cannot know what is real but for some outside of ourselves metaphysical (emotional) experience.  You think yours is best and others are less so but they think theirs is best and yours is not. It is subjective.  And inconsistent.

 

On 3/29/2023 at 3:05 AM, mfbukowski said:

They are interpretations which cannot be proven- nothing CAN be unless they must be attached to a theory of what "correct" even means.

You are putting out drive-by smoke screens with no follow up to defend your position.

And this is the flaw for you.  Nothing can be proven for you.  But you still think you have the best "truth."  Totally a flawed approach.

[Teancum]

On 3/29/2023 at 3:19 AM, mfbukowski said:

How do you know he does?

How do you know he doesn't? How do you know anything?

[Teancum]

On 3/29/2023 at 3:27 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

He thinks Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves by their exclusive religious practices. What does he know about morality?

Does he?  CFR?  Read his book The Moral Landscape.  I doubt you have read or listened to much from Harris at all.

[Calm]

On 3/29/2023 at 1:27 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

He thinks Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves by their exclusive religious practices. What does he know about morality?

CFR please. It doesn’t seem like that from this by him:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/sam-harris-why-dont-i-criticize-israel

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR please. It doesn’t seem like that from this by him:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/sam-harris-why-dont-i-criticize-israel

I'll look up the reference in a minute. But you do realize, (1) a lot of people support Israel because they want Jews to leave and have somewhere to go? (2) He hates Muslims even more?

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I'll look up the reference in a minute. But you do realize, (1) a lot of people support Israel because they want Jews to leave and have somewhere to go? (2) He hates Muslims even more?

Yes, he could be lying about his reasons, but taken at face value, I am not getting hates Jews off of him. He spends a lot of time on how cultural most Jews are in their Judaism. 

[Hamilton Porter]

I think the format of this platform, where links don't have previews, disincentivizes people from posting links and references.