More on Horses

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There’s plenty of help.

Not sure I understand your comment.

[ksfisher]

14 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

I get the central argument is that the Nephites didn't change culturally around the horse so apparently research that proves the horse was in ancient America doesn't matter.

One would think that with all the military actions described in the war chapters of Alma that, if horses were present, that a cavalry action would be mentioned.  Not a thing though. 

Lists of weapons are given.  Casualties numbered.  The receiving of supplies and reinforcement (or lack thereof) noted.  Tactics, deceptions, and stratagems are discussed.  The lack of siege craft inferred. But no cavalry.  No horses.  

Edited April 13, 2023 by ksfisher

[Smiley McGee]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No- every one of those statements about truth is correct.  And you are not understanding how Ayer makes that possible through his attitude and context- even though HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION.

  The church IS TRUE.  READ ALMA 32 

I never said I accepted Ayer's position- the point is that HE LEFT HIS OWN POSITIVISM and went with the theory he put forward in my earlier quote.  I did not then nor do I now accept his theories!

I guess I have to do it for you ALMA 32 is the ultimate statement- which actually works philosophically!!!

These are they who seek "sure evidence" proving the existence of God.

One must work on finding his own "path/truth/testimony".   It is up to every person

One must start with HOPE FOR THINGS UNSEEN.   This is therefore NOT about seeking scientific evidence.  It is a HOPE for things NOT SCIENTIFICALLY verifiable- which clearly INCLUDES religious topics.   "I hope there is a God- wouldn't that be wonderful?"

ALL who seek can receive a testimony- John 5:1 and Moroni 10:3 -6 ish

"Take it slow and easy- don't worry about it.  You can't get truth overnight!  I am not trying to humble you- some of you would, but take it easy as you can according to your circumstances".

You're not going to get "perfect" knowledge out of this- you have to try the practice.  So EXPERIMENT with it- first you have to exercise faith to see if it is going to work at all.

Try it and you will see that it works- then go from there.

Notice what qualifies for "EVIDENCE" here- you must not resist- but allow the FEELING of the goodness of the word- by it "swelling" in your breast.   It feels good, and you will want more of this feeling.  You will FEEL that it is good and give "light" to your spirit.  It will be "delicious" and you will want some more.

This is of course a different kind of evidence than impartial scientific evidence- it is deeply personal and emotionally connected.  It encompasses ALL of you- body and mind and soul!  This is motivated by what we call the "spirit"

This is pefect Pragmatic theory of truth- (insofar as it IS a theory of truth- a bit technical-)  The word WORKS in your life and this is what most people mean with the phrase "I know the church is true"- it means "I have planted the seed and tasted the fruit of the gospel of Jesus Christ- and I KNOW it works by my own experience- the belief has brought me peace and all I could want to acieve purpose in my life, and comfort that my sins are forgiven through Jesus."

You feel the light of Christ- your conscience and you know that what you feel is true and does exactly what you wanted it to do for you- give you comfort and peace of mind in the gospel.

And so it is "true" and you KNOW IT!

OK now this is where it gets REALLY interesting- and discusses reality.   PRAGMATIC REALITY IS ACTUAL EXPERIENCE- if you are looking through a microscope, that is a different experience than NOT looking through a microscope- it is the "reality" itself that changes by changing the perspective and experience of reality.

But the testimony must be fed with further experiences, study and understanding and fostered in order to grow into true knowledge

And so now in religious contexts the criterion of truth becomes the "sweetness" of the message and its affects in our lives.

I agree with Alma 32 as a description of the acquisition and supremacy of experiential knowledge. Where will likely disagree is that I feel the LDS church is a poor laboratory for the kind of experimentation suggested in its own scripture. 

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok. Maybe it is time to start our private conversation.  Tax season has just been overwhelming me. I really do want to try to understand your approach better and educate myself. I really am open to being lead to wherever God or some higher power may lead me. I have a great void in my life right now.

Good idea.

As soon as I am done with taxes as well. 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It's not that hard. LDS testimony meetings are a fascinating thing. Someone says, "I know the the Church is true" - but Churches cannot technically be 'true' - instead the phrase has become a substitute for a series of propositions that someone might hold that they believe are true (and propositions generally can be true and false). And out there in the congregation, when I say 'Amen', what I mean is that I also hold to a series of propositions about the Church that I believe are true. And in this way, we all understand the Church as true, even if we have an entire congregation who, individually, have unique sets of propositions that they believe about the Church.

I am not sure that the "is true" statements are entirely superfluous - and I am very sure that few members have ever thought about it in these terms.

Agree.

[Smiley McGee]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

More’s the pity. They energetically destroy things, but they contribute and build nothing.

 

15 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

They eat tide pods.

It’s a fascinating phenomenon that as people age they make dumb, sweeping statements like these about those younger than them. I’m sure it’s tough to see your kids and grandkids (or their peers) reject the things you value, but you’ll pass on and life will go on. They’ll find a way of life that works for them, criticize your great-great grandkids in the same way you did them, and the cycle will continue. There’s nothing uniquely remarkable about your generation, mine, the one that preceded you, or the ones that will follow long after we’re gone. We all inherit a world and try to repurpose it to make it work for us.

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

I agree with Alma 32 as a description of the acquisition and supremacy of experiential knowledge. Where will likely disagree is that I feel the LDS church is a poor laboratory for the kind of experimentation suggested in its own scripture. 

Ok, but no one does philosophy or if they do, they keep this stuff among themselves. Every philos prof at BYU  and Claremont know this stuff, but know the hassles they will have if the speak straightforwardly.

I don't have a job and tenure on the line, but they hide it behind the name "process philosophy" and nobody understands what it means.

This stuff that I am talking about is the American version of process P, which in Europe started with Kant and then Heidegger really brought it to light.  You cannot separate Claremont school of Theo from Process Philosophy.  Anybody who went there are experts in it.

Look it up.

Cobb had a major influence in this stuff.

They just don't teach it to those unprepared and that was my mistake in thinking this crowd was ready 

This is not Bukowski, this is real stuff in the church, it's just not exactly taught in Sunday School.

But it has to be- this is why the church is bleeding members. They all want a perfect Joseph, history and Nephite pot shards, and a modern miracle or 25.

Time to grow up and see that the church is true, but truth is not what you learned about it in kindergarten or primary 

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good idea.

As soon as I am done with taxes as well. 

 

I will send you an email. I really would like to explore this more. But give me to later next week. I am buried with work till next Tuesday.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I will send you an email. I really would like to explore this more. But give me to later next week. I am buried with work till next Tuesday.

Ok

Make sure your screen name is somewhere on top.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am not sure that the "is true" statements are entirely superfluous - and I am very sure that few members have ever thought about it in these terms

I think he meant that they are LOGICALLY superfluous.

My calling a proposition "true" does not verify that I used a logical argument to arrive at that conclusion. That's a long way from saying that truth itself is superfluous, or nonsense, which was his previous, positivist position. 

Rorty points out that we know what truth is, we know how to use the word, we just cannot DEFINE it.

It's like the word "God" or "beautiful", it is ineffable. But yes, few people think about these topics. 

"I know the church is true" is a fully meaningful statement though, I am certainly not saying anything otherwise when I myself say that in testimony meeting. 

For me, it means that I am certain that following the covenant path is the best religious path and lifestyle for me, and my family's spiritual growth, and that God has revealed this to me through many religious experiences.

Edited April 13, 2023 by mfbukowski

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

There’s nothing uniquely remarkable about your generation, mine, the one that preceded you, or the ones that will follow long after we’re gone. 

Ya know, I understand this is the going notion, but it's one I struggle with.  Cruising through my 6th decade, having paid attention to cultural change since the 1980's, I believe there are absolutely unique cultural/generational markers that help us distinguish the boomers from Gen X from millennials from Gen Z.  Also, as I'm idly reading through The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I'm growing in awareness of civilization life-cycles, and finding new similarities between them and the US hegemony with every chapter. 

Yeah, humans gonna hoom.  But groups of humans absolutely display certain flavors/traits/opinions/motivations/ideals/values in greater amounts than other groups of humans.  There's as much a generational component to this, as there is a religious/racial/income/gender component.

[Hamilton Porter]

13 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Also, as I'm idly reading through The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I'm growing in awareness of civilization life-cycles, and finding new similarities between them and the US hegemony with every chapter. 

Society will swing back. This rising "Gen-alpha" wants to be more in-the-moment, and less buried in their phones and seeking validation through Instagram likes.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Meadowchik]

On 4/11/2023 at 9:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

Wow. Its getting weird reading your personal hang ups about polygamy in this horse thread. Such "lies" seem a little murky and subjective.

Why? Are you concerned that some people prioritize the morality of Joseph Smith over the historicity of the BOM?

I'm not the only person on this frame declaring how they prioritize the OP topic. 

[Meadowchik]

On 4/11/2023 at 9:30 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Sorry to hear that.

Sorry about which part? The lies, or that they matter to me, or something else?

[Hamilton Porter]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sorry about which part? The lies, or that they matter to me, or something else?

Whoever wronged you.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

 

It’s a fascinating phenomenon that as people age they make dumb, sweeping statements like these about those younger than them. I’m sure it’s tough to see your kids and grandkids (or their peers) reject the things you value, but you’ll pass on and life will go on. They’ll find a way of life that works for them, criticize your great-great grandkids in the same way you did them, and the cycle will continue. There’s nothing uniquely remarkable about your generation, mine, the one that preceded you, or the ones that will follow long after we’re gone. We all inherit a world and try to repurpose it to make it work for us.

You don’t have a clue. Condescension looks good on you, no?

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Smiley McGee]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You don’t have a clue. Condescension looks good on you, no?

 

Incredible comment from someone who casually asserts that two entire generations of people “contribute nothing.” 

[Meadowchik]

56 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Whoever wronged you.

Thanks. It was horrible but also taught me some vital things for which I am grateful.

[Pyreaux]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Why? Are you concerned that some people prioritize the morality of Joseph Smith over the historicity of the BOM?

I'm not the only person on this frame declaring how they prioritize the OP topic. 

I would think blanket statements that Joseph is an immoral liar and so the Book of Mormon can't be trusted is disputable. Keeping secrets isn't the same as being untrustworthy, in a way, the ability to keep confidence can be a wash for trustworthiness. Like if you've sworn to secrecy, being honest is oath breaking, therefore dishonest.

And is secrecy or fraud never justified? Should a Nazi German citizen be honest to his friends and government about harboring Jews, or honest about their own Jewish heritage or practices? Is that more or less exactly the sort of dilemma the Saints faced in that time? There was persecution just from rumors of polygamy.

I've been in the camp of "the main characters involved are probably not trying to lie from their point of view", that Emma and Joseph refuted polygamy, honest in a point of view. To me Joseph's Polygamy wasn't classical "Polygamy", or very different from how the public, we or Brigham Young understood it. For instance, a huge lack of proof these possible multiple sealings were consummated at all. The DNA tests show the diaries of the "wives" of Joseph Smith are a bit "untrustworthy", their child was never as they said it a "child of Joseph Smith". Or it was just a point of view, they merely saying they were "sealed" to Joseph.

And how would Joseph's late behavior with polygamy come back on the Book of Mormon, that outlawed polygamy? A question explored among the 3 Witnesses, whose integrity is undisputed, who saw Moroni and the golden plates, who easily favored the Book of Mormon over Joseph Smith. Even thinking Joseph went crazy in Nauvoo with the sealing power, for them it was possible that Joseph was a prophet, who became a fallen prophet, and the Book of Mormon is still true. No matter what Joseph Smith is accused of, real or imagined, has little to do with a personally confirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon. Some witnesses with no loyalty to Joseph Smith at all, still testified of the Book of Mormon on their death beds.

Joseph Smith polygamy secrets/lies =/= Book of Mormon can't be true + a personal witness of the Book of Mormon can't be true = there can't be horses

Edited April 14, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I would think a blanket statements that Joseph is an immoral liar and so the Book of Mormon can't be trusted is disputable. Keeping secrets isn't the same as being untrustworthy, in a way, the ability to keep confidence can be a wash for trustworthiness. Like if you've sworn to secrecy, being honest is oath breaking, therefore dishonest.

And is secrecy or fraud never justified? Should a Nazi German citizen be honest to his friends and government about harboring Jews, or honest about their own Jewish heritage or practices? Is that more or less exactly the sort of dilemma the Saints faced in that time? There was persecution just from rumors of polygamy.

I've been in the camp of "the main characters involved are probably not trying to lie from their point of view", that Emma and Joseph refuted polygamy, honest in a point of view. To me Joseph's Polygamy wasn't classical "Polygamy", or very different from how the public, we or Brigham Young understood it. For instance, a huge lack of proof these possible multiple sealings were consummated at all. The DNA tests show the diaries of the "wives" of Joseph Smith are a bit "untrustworthy", their child was never as they said it a "child of Joseph Smith". Or it was just a point of view, they saying they were merely "sealed" to Joseph.

And how would Joseph's late behavior with polygamy come back on the Book of Mormon, that outlawed polygamy? A question explored among the 3 Witnesses, whose integrity is undisputed, who saw Moroni and the golden plates, who easily favored the Book of Mormon over Joseph Smith. Even thinking Joseph went crazy in Nauvoo with the sealing power, for them it was possible that Joseph was a prophet, who became a fallen prophet, and the Book of Mormon is still true. No matter Joseph Smith is accused of, real or imagined, has little to do with a confirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon. Some witnesses with no loyalty to Joseph Smith at all, still testified of the Book of Mormon on their death beds.

joseph polygamy secrets/lies =/=  Book of Mormon can't be true + a personal witness of the Book of Mormon can't be true = there can't be horses

I was very specific about the kind of deception he engaged in.  Of course even as a youth I'd already invented the lying-for-a-better-cause apologetics like so many of us have independently. It's a common rationale. 

What got me was the the very intimate nature of it, him lying and deceiving people it mattered to on a deep personal level and for extended time, not about issues impacting him alone, but them directly and personally, things they needed to know in the interest of full disclosure and for their own personal lives. 

The worst thing about the Book of Mormon is that it has been presented to millions of people as their own personal ancestral histories. Effectively it has whitewashed their stories in exchange for something unsubstantiated. That's also deeply personal and wrong--but it only hit me what it has done to so-called Lamanites after I understood more insightfully what Joseph had done to his wife and community.

In my estimation, God wouldn't have him do to Emma what he did, what the church says he did and what is still recorded as scripture. It's wrong and it's not good fruit.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You don’t have a clue. Condescension looks good on you, no?

 

You just labelled two generations of youth that the prophets have called the strongest yet as completely worthless.

[Hamilton Porter]

43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The worst thing about the Book of Mormon is that it has been presented to millions of people as their own personal ancestral histories. Effectively it has whitewashed their stories in exchange for something unsubstantiated. That's also deeply personal and wrong--but it only hit me what it has done to so-called Lamanites after I understood more insightfully what Joseph had done to his wife and community

Meh. It doesn't really replace anything. There are groups of people all over the world who claim descent from Jews based on their oral histories. It fits into their own narratives fine.

A native American member in my area said that after the DNA studies came out, she began thinking more universally. Didn't affect her testimony much.

Of course, we still have the 70% LDS Catawba tribe in North Carolina that still holds on to the promise in the Book of Mormon that natives will kill all white people who don't convert to Mormonism, and get their land back. Something to be giddy about, for sure.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Meh. It doesn't really replace anything. There are groups of people all over the world who claim descent from Jews based on their oral histories. It fits into their own narratives fine.

A native American member in my area said that after the DNA studies came out, she began thinking more universally. Didn't affect her testimony much.

Of course, we still have the 70% LDS Catawba tribe in North Carolina that still holds on to the promise in the Book of Mormon that natives will kill all white people who don't convert to Mormonism, and get their land back. Something to be giddy about, for sure.

It's not for me to "meh" especially when I know people are deeply affected by it. 

I think you are being dismissive though of the extreme impact historical whitewashing has had on people the church identified as Lamanites. 

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not for me to "meh" especially when I know people are deeply affected by it. 

I think you are being dismissive though of the extreme impact historical whitewashing has had on people the church identified as Lamanites. 

Yeah, I've noticed dismissive hand waving is kind of his thing.

[Pyreaux]

Makes a far better impact arguing for their divine significance than the whitewashing done by non-Mormons of their divine insignificance, via Manifest Destiny.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Pyreaux