Gospel Writers, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

There are more and more postmodern professors at BYU making postmodern arguments. I even saw one of my Sunday school teachers carry a book titled Postmodern Theology. He didn't quote the book during the lesson but I have no doubt he slipped some in.

It's more pervasive in the church than you think.

It has to be or we will not be here in 50 years.

Our children's children will look back and chuckle.

Many of our kids do today

Look who we lost just since covid.  It cannot last as is.

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

You’re dreaming. You think that recent policy changes are evidence for some post-modern awakening in Salt Lake? Yes, headquarters is circulating talking points from Rorty and Nietzsche and wondering to themselves “this is it, but gee whiz if only our members weren’t so dumb to not understand the nuance of our doctrine.” 
 

I get that you came to the church via philosophy and have your own perspective, but you don’t get to tell someone who has attended church since before they could speak, graduated from seminary, BYU, served a mission, and married in the temple that they don’t understand what the church’s “views” are, and you’re way out of line for suggesting I’m “anti-Mormon” for sharing my observations from a lifetime of membership. You can piss off with your nonsense accusations. You clearly take for granted the amount of violence your philosophy deals to mainstream Mormon thought. Do you really not understand the amount of deconstruction that is necessary to accept your views? Have you just been pointing the same people to that Rorty quote in your signature for years without actually listening to their responses? Yes, it’s stupid to conflate historical and religious facts, but that’s your church bro, and it doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.  

Why should I care what others think?

God has verified my views to me, and they are absolutely true based their structure as a tautology.

My points cannot be disproved.

We can only know what humans are capable of knowing. That is the tautology which is an absolute truth 

[Smiley McGee]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why should I care what others think?

God has verified my views to me, and they are absolutely true based their structure as a tautology.

My points cannot be disproved.

We can only know what humans are capable of knowing. That is the tautology which is an absolute truth 

Good for you; you found a way to make Mormonism work in your life. Only problem is that the vast majority of Mormons aren’t pragmatists. By your own definition you attend church with a bunch of anti-Mormons because they think historical facts are religious facts. Do you go around your ward enlightening them of how anti-Mormon they are? Or is that just a dumb rhetorical device you misapply online to try to win an argument? 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Hamilton Porter]

On 4/21/2023 at 3:43 PM, Islander said:

NONE of them are complete and there are TOUSANDS of variances between them.

It's not perfectly preserved, but there is amazing continuity between the manuscripts and what we have today. In any case, it's better-preserved than the New Testament, for sure. Furthermore, most scholars are convinced the Constitution of Medina is authentic and historical.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Good for you; you found a way to make Mormonism work in your life. Only problem is that the vast majority of Mormons aren’t pragmatists. By your own definition you attend church with a bunch of anti-Mormons because they think historical facts are religious facts. Do you go around your ward enlightening them of how anti-Mormon they are? Or is that just a dumb rhetorical device you misapply online to try to win an argument? 

Yes members leave the church because they are easily beguiled and don't understand simple philosophical concepts. Know anyone like that?  Others go off because they do not understand analogies, and apply to others things they never said.

That's it from me.

No more soup for you!

Edited April 24, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

On 4/14/2023 at 1:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

We are so stupid.  Here we are talking about horses to verify the truth of the BOM when what we need to concentrate on the intellectual potential of the book as scholars see it so we CAN make it "grow in esteem"

It seems to me the criticisms are more than horses.

On 4/14/2023 at 1:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

Then we will see better results.

Perhaps.

 

On 4/14/2023 at 1:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

We need to grow our own intellectual esteem instead of fighting the Anti's stupid historical arguments, which are totally irrelevant to what is important.

When the book claims to be a record of real people then the history is a key component of the books claims.  At least as far as whether there was Lehi, Nephi, Moroni-who allegedly appeared as and angel to JS, and so on. Also the claim as to real gold plates that the book allegedly was translated from and so on.  If JS fabricated all this just to give credence at minimum it it can cause one to question whether he can be trusted as well as whether what the book says can be trusted.

If you want to argue that the book is simply an inspired book of scripture and the stories are allegorical or parables to teach truths that is fine.  I could get my head around that. But JS did not argue that nor does the church.

 

On 4/14/2023 at 1:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

Again, it's like attacking Beethoven's music because he made mistakes in his life.

I think that is a poor comparison. Beethoven did not claim God was giving him scriptural music for the world.

 

On 4/14/2023 at 1:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

No academic would try to make a case against Beethoven for such a stupid reason, but we argue about horses because of the stupid arguments our opposition makes.

It is not just horses.

 

 

On 4/14/2023 at 1:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

We need to latch on to the intellectual esteem the world could see instead of fighting in the mud with the groundlings.

We don't know what we have!! We need to SEE what the author of the article sees!

This is why I argue against historical arguments: they are irrelevant to the philosophical richness we have staring us in the face, we just have to SEE it!

Again if the prophet claimed it as simply inspired revelation with no basis in history then I agree.  He did not. The Church does not.  Let me ask, if Jesus was not a real person does the story of the resurrection matter?  History does matter.

 

On 4/14/2023 at 1:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

 

We need to "radically alter the context" to show the intellectual richness in the BOM.

Our own historical obsession can make us a historical failure, a blip in history.

Time to grow up, people!

 

So I have been reading up a bit on modernism vs post modernism. I hope to start a private email conversation with you soon.

[Teancum]

On 4/20/2023 at 3:40 PM, mfbukowski said:

My point is that history in general can NEVER make religious statements true or false.

Yes it can. If Jesus never existed then he could never have been resurrected. Your comment above is much to broad.

[Teancum]

On 4/20/2023 at 3:40 PM, mfbukowski said:

You can't research whether or not murder is "wrong", the STATEMENT "Murder is wrong" and the actual history of every murder that ever happened, every gruesome fact, cannot tell you that " murder is wrong".

I disagree. You can research whether murder is wrong based on morals and ethics.  The morals and ethics should focus on what is things are of the best benefit for human kind.  Murder does not benefit humans. Thus it is wrong.

[Teancum]

On 4/20/2023 at 9:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

 What historical event alone proves that God exists and did it? 

 I'm waiting.   🤓 

None

That is why is may be likely God does not exist.  

[Teancum]

On 4/20/2023 at 10:08 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Could it be because your religion has linked the two? That the truth of the Book of Mormon is 1) religious and 2) historical. It seems to me that the vast majority of LDS couldn’t accept a Book of Mormon that was historically inaccurate, i.e. didn’t historically happen. Am I misunderstanding you?

It is not just his, it it yours as well.  If historically, Jesus never existed (I believe he did BTW) then he would have never been resurrected and Christianity is false. Now he did exist. The next historic question is did he rise from the dead and did those who claim to see him really see him and can they be trusted.  History does matter.  Same with JS and the BoM. Did he really see an angel as he claimed?  Did he have gold plates? Did the BoM people really exist?  All are critical to the question about whether the BoM is from God.  Now had JS claimed that it was just a parable that God revealed to him to teach religious truth I think we have a different discussion.

[Teancum]

On 4/22/2023 at 8:47 AM, Smiley McGee said:

You're making an incorrect inference and cannot even see it. Surely you have enough self-awareness to realize that your views, though constituting probably the best brand of Mormon theology I’ve heard, are not accepted by leadership and the general membership. Where the hell do you think ex-Mormons developed their logical reasoning?

My constant point with him...over and over again.

[Smiley McGee]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes members leave the church because they are easily beguiled and don't understand simple philosophical concepts. Know anyone like that?  Others go off because they do not understand analogies, and apply to others things they never said.

That's it from me.

No more soup for you!

It’s a lazy and cowardly apologetic approach to continue to blame members whose beliefs and logic mirror what leadership has taught them for centuries. You’re in a precarious position of asserting that your brand of Mormonism is THE brand of Mormonism yet leadership has preached the opposite. Your beef is ultimately with the brethren, and if criticizing leadership is a line you can’t cross then at least be honest and qualify your critique accordingly.
 

Additionally you continue to confuse my personal religious beliefs with my observations of mainstream Mormonism. What do I believe Mark? Can you comprehend that from my posts? Or are you going to continue to insist that I’m anti-Mormon because you want to attribute beliefs to me that I don’t hold?

Edited April 24, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes members leave the church because they are easily beguiled and don't understand simple philosophical concepts. Know anyone like that?  Others go off because they do not understand analogies, and apply to others things they never said.

That's it from me.

No more soup for you!

Hey my friend! How would you define postmodern theology to a fifth grader? I once had a bestselling author explain to me that if you can't say it at a fifth grade level, no one will buy it! I don't know if that is true or not, but that is how I think of things. Can you please take a stab at defining postmodern theology for us at a fifth grade level? Thanks.

[Hamilton Porter]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hey my friend! How would you define postmodern theology to a fifth grader? I once had a bestselling author explain to me that if you can't say it at a fifth grade level, no one will buy it! I don't know if that is true or not, but that is how I think of things. Can you please take a stab at defining postmodern theology for us at a fifth grade level? Thanks.

Today, something exists if it takes up space. Like this key.

But in the ancient near east, it didn't exist. Because back then, something exists when it has a function. Like this key opening up a lock. 

 

Definitions never stay the same over time.

For more information, read this book:

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The morals and ethics should focus on what is things are of the best benefit for human kind.

Sorry, that's abject nonsense. Especially in America, where the Constitution protects individual rights at the expense of group rights.

[mfbukowski]

Error.

Answered wrong post!

Edited April 24, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Today, something exists if it takes up space. Like this key.

But in the ancient near east, it didn't exist. Because back then, something exists when it has a function. Like this key opening up a lock. 

 

Definitions never stay the same over time.

For more information, read this book:

So, are you defining postmodernism as premodernism? I have the highest regard for Walton and all those (Waltke, and others) who recommended this book. I just ordered it! Thanks so much for the recommendation. Are you sure you aren't an Evangelical? It seems as if you recommend a lot of Evangelical writers! 😄 I tend to see Evangelical scholars as functional in the midst of chaos! Best to you.

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Today, something exists if it takes up space. Like this key.

But in the ancient near east, it didn't exist. Because back then, something exists when it has a function. Like this key opening up a lock. 

 

Definitions never stay the same over time.

For more information, read this book:

Pragmatism:

D&C 93:30

"All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence."

Truth is approximated in paradigms/ideas that work (act) in their sphere- deciding how well they work for your purpose is part of intelligence.  Without ideas that work, nothing would exist.

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

 Can you please take a stab at defining postmodern theology for us at a fifth grade level? Thanks.

Well gee, I don't want to avoid. a challenge from an anonymous best selling author.

These folks obviously are wise and always correct in all things.

Here ya go:

Words are just squiggles on a page until you try to figure out what they mean, and see if they work in your life

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Hamilton Porter]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well gee, I don't want to avoid. a challenge from an anonymous best selling author.

These folks obviously are wise and always correct in all things.

Here ya go:

Words are just squiggles on a page until you try to figure out what they mean, and see if they work in your life

 

How was my explanation?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

It’s a lazy and cowardly apologetic approach to continue to blame members whose beliefs and logic mirror what leadership has taught them for centuries. You’re in a precarious position of asserting that your brand of Mormonism is THE brand of Mormonism yet leadership has preached the opposite. Your beef is ultimately with the brethren, and if criticizing leadership is a line you can’t cross then at least be honest and qualify your critique accordingly.
 

Additionally you continue to confuse my personal religious beliefs with my observations of mainstream Mormonism. What do I believe Mark? Can you comprehend that from my posts? Or are you going to continue to insist that I’m anti-Mormon because you want to attribute beliefs to me that I don’t hold?

You are clearly not anti-mormon but some kind of confusion has entered our discussions, sorry if it was my fault.

All I am saying is that Accepted Paradigm by both Mormons AND anti's is clearly the paradigm that scripture must be based on historical facts.

It is a leftover from hundreds of years ago, when the bible was said to be "God Breathed" and inerrant in every way. People still accept that. 

If it was not historically correct then it was worthless.

I do not accept that PARADIGM, I have a testimony that it is an error in logic.

Scripture is allegedly inspiration from God repeating their OWN revelations.

Fine, but what they say are in books compounded by folks just like you and me, and what God tells ME may differ from what God tells YOU,  we are both individuals on the path with different needs. 

Maybe some need to believe in bible inaccuracy as I do, others need to believe in sola scriptura.

Both needs are real and cause conflict.

The antis are non belivers who still accept the old sola scriptura paradigm, that history rules, and I am not.

I do not care if scripture is historical or not.  It MIGHT be, or not, that is your paradigm apparently 

I take scripture as words of wisdom, REGARDLESS of anything else.

That's all I need from it.  Could be historic, God breathed, fables, metaphors, I don't care.

Wisdom is wisdom, as far as I am concerned, I don't care who said it, where or when, as long as it works in my life.

But if you just cannot see it that way, I cannot see it you way, we can both be faithful LDS either way.

Enough. Real life intervenes.

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

How was my explanation?

Right on, brother! 😋

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

So, are you defining postmodernism as premodernism? I have the highest regard for Walton and all those (Waltke, and others) who recommended this book. I just ordered it! Thanks so much for the recommendation. Are you sure you aren't an Evangelical? It seems as if you recommend a lot of Evangelical writers! 😄 I tend to see Evangelical scholars as functional in the midst of chaos! Best to you.

Great! Post your review of the book when you're done.

The evangelicals I recommend are all trained at secular schools.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is not just horses.

That sounds vaguely like the name of a folk song from the sixties!

[Navidad]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

that scripture must be based on historical facts.

In the FWIW department, I don't think I require that, I guess it depends on the topic at hand. I do believe that for Christianity to work, Christ had to be a historic figure. I don't believe that Jonah had to be swallowed by a fish, or that the genealogical lists are historic, or that the sun had to have literally stood still. What does that make me? I think you may be stuck a bit - stuck in a 1960s view of your opposition - the "antis" you like to treat as if they still exist as they did in the 1950s and 1960s. Or does that work for you, so your pragmatism requires you to hold on to it? I am still trying to understand both you, pragmatism, and your concept of postmodernism in the real world. Oh and also why my LDS friends seem to need for there to be an anti behind every bush and on every corner? It seems to be a pragmatic societal norm in the broad pew-based LDS community.