General Conference Thoughts

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Is this "knowing" done in the absence of visible evidence?

Visible evidence?

We are speaking about all human experience, hearing, seeing etc. Including the context of the experience as understood.

Color is always a good start since it is visual.  If you see a red car, is it true that it is "red"?  Is redness "real"?

Suppose in an experiment, if the fluid turns red, it indicates X but if it turns blue it indicates Y.

Is that empirical evidence?

Edited October 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Leaf474]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

A new life begins at conception but we don't know when the spirit enters the body and becomes a soul.

Joseph Smith said:
"The Lord takes many away even in infancy that they may escape the envy of man, and the sorrows and evils of this present world--they were too lovely and too pure to live on earth. (The Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 106-109)

President Joseph Fielding Smith once said:
“Satan cannot tempt little children in this life, nor in the spirit world, nor after their resurrection. Little children who die before reaching the years of accountability will not be tempted.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:56-57.)

So for some reason that only God knows, these children don't need the test of temptation for their salvation; they only need a body.

Yes, a new life begins at conception - I accidentally wrote "consumption" in my post, so I'm glad you understood 😀

 

And thanks for the information!

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Visible evidence?

We are speaking about all human experience, hearing, seeing etc. Including the context of the experience as understood.

Well, the "seeing" would be visible evidence imo.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Color is always a good start since it is visual.  If you see a red car, is it true that it is "red"?  Is redness "real"?

Suppose in an experiment, if the fluid turns red, it indicates X but if it turns blue it indicates Y.

Is that empirical evidence?

Yes, I think that would be empirical evidence.

 

So, if a leader of a tightly knit group claims to be the bread of life and then miraculously feeds a bunch of people, or claims to be the resurrection and the life and then resurrects someone, that person would get a pass on financial records from me.

 

But lacking significant signs, secret financial records is a warning sign, as the list posted earlier by someone talked about.

 

"I am the bread of life."

John 6

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Well, the "seeing" would be visible evidence imo.

 

Yes, I think that would be empirical evidence.

 

So, if a leader of a tightly knit group claims to be the bread of life and then miraculously feeds a bunch of people, or claims to be the resurrection and the life and then resurrects someone, that person would get a pass on financial records from me.

 

But lacking significant signs, secret financial records is a warning sign, as the list posted earlier by someone talked about.

 

"I am the bread of life."

John 6

So you are saying that the experience of red, as invented in the human brain alone, is "real", and can be seen as an "empirical" phenomenon.

I am talking about the nature of reality itself now, not conclusions about economics and bookeeping, and conceptual human constructions, and what the ability to resurrect has to do with honesty.

Could you cite the logical steps between a presumed physical, scientific, result like restoring life, to what that has to do with USA tax codes and obedience to them?

Remember we are discussing RADICAL Empiricism as understood by William James, which theoretically explicitly prohibits even discussion of anything "supernatural"- as incidentally so implicitly does LDS doctrine, which includes the idea that God uses natural means, some of which are as yet unknown to man.

So without using the Supernatural, please show what resurrection has to do with the US tax codes.

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So you are saying that the experience of red, as invented in the human brain alone, is "real", and can be seen as an "empirical" phenomenon.

I am talking about the nature of reality itself now, not conclusions about economics and bookeeping, and conceptual human constructions, and what the ability to resurrect has to do with honesty.

Could you cite the logical steps between a presumed physical, scientific, result like restoring life, to what that has to do with USA tax codes and obedience to them?

Remember we are discussing RADICAL Empiricism as understood by William James, which theoretically explicitly prohibits even discussion of anything "supernatural"- as incidentally so implicitly does LDS doctrine, which includes the idea that God uses natural means, some of which are as yet unknown to man.

So without using the Supernatural, please show what resurrection has to do with the US tax codes.

 

Hey Mark. Maybe you should let our new-ish Evangelical poster know that your interpretation/paradigm is not the standard mainstream LDS view. Let him know that you believe it is and should be, but right now it’s not. 
 

Otherwise he might be hopelessly confused. 

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Let him know that you believe it is and should be, but right now it’s not.

Admit that the organization you’re defending rejects the philosophy you’re using to defend it?

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey Mark. Maybe you should let our new-ish Evangelical poster know that your interpretation/paradigm is not the standard mainstream LDS view. Let him know that you believe it is and should be, but right now it’s not. 
 

Otherwise he might be hopelessly confused. 

If you follow the conversation, you will see that I tried to drop the topic, but he still asked questions, while I was describing William James' Radical Empiricism.

So I persisted.

I believe I can answer my own question which I asked him, using that paradigm about which he was apparently asking.  It has to do ultimately with with the efficacy of the religious beliefs I hold.

I had thought I would give him a puzzle which would lead to discussion and possible resolution because HE ASKED.

He knows a lot about the church, so I am not worried that he will think this discussion, at this stage, represents LDS doctrine.

BUT I am glad to give up on his question if he wants, it will be a lot of typing to get from here to there.

Yes, this was about Empirical Theology and not LDS Doctrine

https://www.religion-online.org/article/empirical-theology-a-revisable-tradition/#:~:text=An empirical theologian interprets the,is made plausible or revised.

"Dean suggests that American religious empiricists may have lapsed into objectivism at times, but a third position of speculative and radically empirical realism, a religious historicism, holds up well in the current forces of deconstructionism, neopragmatism, and language philosophy."

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

On 10/5/2023 at 9:55 AM, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps that is where we differ, which is the cause of all the drama.

And what do you mean by "things" here?

Thoughts?

Propositions? Cats vs dogs? Beliefs?

truths (with a small t)

[Navidad]

On 10/5/2023 at 5:46 PM, Tacenda said:

I like what this blogger says:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unenlightenment/2020/12/jesus-was-a-heretic/

"

Although many Protestants would deny this, we oftentimes elevate tradition over truth. We take ideas that have been passed down to us and we rarely question them, because to do so is to risk heresy. In fact, some traditions are handed down to us that never had any foundation in the Early Church. Somewhere along the way some of these ideas morphed and became something new (ex. women not being allowed to lead in ministry).

Although the culture of questioning is slowly beginning to change (thanks to other heretics), we still need to create atmospheres within our church communities that allow for people to question. We should have a heretic(s) in every church who is willing to hold their church accountable. Perhaps if we had more people like this, then leaders within the Church might be more respected. Maybe we would be able to see clearer those issues that are actually important. Maybe, as Jesus demonstrated, heresy would bring about more grace in our communities, and more love for our neighbors."

There is no question in my mind that there are many in all religious traditions who elevate tradition over truth, or those who at the very least confuse tradition with truth, or who confuse truth with Truth.

[Navidad]

On 10/6/2023 at 12:23 PM, Meadowchik said:

That's not true, because deciding to remove oneself from the church is not the same as wanting everyone else to leave.

I would add that leaving an institution is not the same as leaving the faith. No institution is the way, the truth and the life. Only one person is the way, the truth, and the life. He certainly exists independently of every institution.

[Navidad]

On 10/6/2023 at 2:46 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

This conversation has reminded me of the Red Flags or Signs that one may be a part of a dangerous or toxic organization.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
2. Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
3. Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget
4. Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
5. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
6. Abuse of members
7. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
8. Followers feeling they are never able to be “good enough”
9. A belief that the leader is right at all times
10. A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation

I think church leaders and members actually glorify many of these positions.

Would you mind sharing where these come from? I find them very interesting in the context of public education. Thanks.

[Leaf474]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So you are saying that the experience of red, as invented in the human brain alone, is "real", and can be seen as an "empirical" phenomenon.

Well, I'd say that the human mind experiences consciousness. Possibly that's the result of the brain, possibly not.

 

Part of my experience of Consciousness is the perception of "red".

 

What other people experience in their consciousness, or if they are conscious at all, is not something I know for sure.

(It is something that I believe, that other people experience Consciousness similar to how I do. But it's a matter of faith, imo.)

 

Now, does that count as empirical phenomena in your view?

 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

I am talking about the nature of reality itself now,

Cool, I love discussions about the nature of reality!

 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

...not conclusions about economics and bookeeping, and conceptual human constructions, and what the ability to resurrect has to do with honesty.

The ability to resurrect may not be related to honesty. I was just saying that someone that could do that would get a pass on financial records from me.

 

As I mentioned earlier, financial impropriety took place with the group that Jesus ran:

John 12:6

Now Judas said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and having the money box, used to steal what was put into it.

 

 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Could you cite the logical steps between a presumed physical, scientific, result like restoring life, to what that has to do with USA tax codes and obedience to them?

I can discuss the steps in my consciousness, if you like.

 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Remember we are discussing RADICAL Empiricism as understood by William James, which theoretically explicitly prohibits even discussion of anything "supernatural"- as incidentally so implicitly does LDS doctrine, which includes the idea that God uses natural means, some of which are as yet unknown to man.

Well, I believe you brought up radical empiricism. Does it relate to whether or not Jesus was a leader of a tightly-knit group (or "cult"), whether he maintained open financial records, and whether a leader today of such a group who does not do things like predict his own resurrection ought to be trusted with secret financial records?

 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

So without using the Supernatural, please show what resurrection has to do with the US tax codes.

As noted above, I'm not sure that it does. Also, I want to say that I'm on a cell phone, and it's not easy to go back and see what was said earlier. So, am I following your train of thought? Or at least responding in a reasonable fashion to your questions?

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey Mark. Maybe you should let our new-ish Evangelical poster know that your interpretation/paradigm is not the standard mainstream LDS view. Let him know that you believe it is and should be, but right now it’s not. 
 

Otherwise he might be hopelessly confused. 

Well, for those who thought HE was confused, it appears that it was "Y'ALL" who were confused after all.

English really does need a second person plural pronoun.

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Well, I'd say that the human mind experiences consciousness. Possibly that's the result of the brain, possibly not.

 

Part of my experience of Consciousness is the perception of "red".

 

What other people experience in their consciousness, or if they are conscious at all, is not something I know for sure.

(It is something that I believe, that other people experience Consciousness similar to how I do. But it's a matter of faith, imo.)

 

Now, does that count as empirical phenomena in your view?

 

Cool, I love discussions about the nature of reality!

 

The ability to resurrect may not be related to honesty. I was just saying that someone that could do that would get a pass on financial records from me.

 

As I mentioned earlier, financial impropriety took place with the group that Jesus ran:

John 12:6

Now Judas said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and having the money box, used to steal what was put into it.

 

 

I can discuss the steps in my consciousness, if you like.

 

Well, I believe you brought up radical empiricism. Does it relate to whether or not Jesus was a leader of a tightly-knit group (or "cult"), whether he maintained open financial records, and whether a leader today of such a group who does not do things like predict his own resurrection ought to be trusted with secret financial records?

 

As noted above, I'm not sure that it does. Also, I want to say that I'm on a cell phone, and it's not easy to go back and see what was said earlier. So, am I following your train of thought? Or at least responding in a reasonable fashion to your questions?

Yep.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Well, I'd say that the human mind experiences consciousness.

What does the word "consciousness" add to this assertion?  Is that the logical equivalent to the simplified statement of only two words: "Humans experience". ?

What IS "consciousness"?

Could we say "Humans experience trees" or is it necessary to say "The human mind experiences consciousness of trees"?

To me the latter introduces two non-empirical possible entities- the mind, and consciousness.

What do these terms add to "experience" 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Part of my experience of Consciousness is the perception of "red".

The question was whether or not "red" was real.

Do we EVER perceive things "as they are" ? 

"Now we see in a mirror darkly but THEN face to face"

Now we see only as in a mirror of our own thoughts and perceptions- our experiences.

All we can know is what we experience/ perceive, but not "things as they are".

That should move the discussion forward.

All we CAN know is created, like the color red, by our own perceptions/experiences.

Billions have testified (LDS and others) of experiencing "God", through gur feelings, hunches, instincts, the conscience and "still small voice" that an Intelligence beyond themselves is guiding them.

That experience IS an empirical experience- ask in any LDS ward if the phenomena exists- as real at least as a perception of red.

One could survey empirically the numbers of how many claim that.

Most will describe the experience similarly.

That Religious experience exists is an empirical fact.

THAT is the cornerstone of empirical theology.  It is as real as any other "quale"

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

Edited October 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Leaf474]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What does the word "consciousness" add to this assertion?  Is that the logical equivalent to the simplified statement of only two words: "Humans experience". ?

What IS "consciousness"?

Could we say "Humans experience trees" or is it necessary to say "The human mind experiences consciousness of trees"?

To me the latter introduces two non-empirical possible entities- the mind, and consciousness.

What do these terms add to "experience" 

I brought up consciousness because I believe you had asserted that the experience of red was invented by the human brain alone.

 

I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion, but I disagree that my experience of red is a product of my brain alone.

[Leaf474]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The question was whether or not "red" was real.

Okay... I'd say it is as real as anything else that my eyes see, disallowing optical illusions.

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do we EVER perceive things "as they are" ?

Possibly. That's where faith that God has created a real world and ways for us to perceive it comes in imo.

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Now we see in a mirror darkly but THEN face to face"

Definitely true in the context of "Love never fails." But people who say that and stop there are not generally leaders of tightly-knit groups.

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Now we see only as in a mirror of our own thoughts and perceptions- our experiences.

All we can know is what we experience/ perceive, but not "things as they are".

That should move the discussion forward.

It seems like a reasonable assertion. It doesn't look to me like it's necessarily true.

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All we CAN know is created, like the color red, by our own perceptions/experiences.

Possibly where we disagree. I say, as a matter of faith, that the God in whom we live and move is not a product solely of my own perception.

 

 ‘For in him we live, move, and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ 

Acts 17

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Billions have testified (LDS and others) of experiencing "God", through gur feelings, hunches, instincts, the conscience and "still small voice" that an Intelligence beyond themselves is guiding them.

That experience IS an empirical experience- ask in any LDS ward if the phenomena exists- as real at least as a perception of red.

One could survey empirically the numbers of how many claim that.

Most will describe the experience similarly.

That Religious experience exists is an empirical fact.

THAT is the cornerstone of empirical theology.  It is as real as any other "quale"

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

I don't doubt that many people have similar religious experiences. These feelings can be co-opted by unscrupulous people.

 

There are millions of Jehovah's Witnesses who are convinced that the Watchtower Organization is completely honest and trustworthy in its financial dealings. But they have secret financial records, and to me that's a warning sign, as the list posted by someone else above alluded to.

 

Surely you use visible evidence, information from your eyes. Red means stop, green means go. If you see a guy perform a resurrection, is that useful information? I think it is, easily as useful as the traffic light color.

 

I'm saying that the guy who you see performong the resurrection gets a pass on having public financial records. But, for example, the Watchtower Organization keeping secret records and relying on people's experience in the Kingdom Halls, they don't get a pass from me.

 

I believe that's a better way to live. And that was part of Nelson's talk, IIRC.

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

I brought up consciousness because I believe you had asserted that the experience of red was invented by the human brain alone.

 

I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion, but I disagree that my experience of red is a product of my brain alone.

It is a human EXPERIENCE or INTERPRETATION of "redness" which science tells us happens when a certain frequency of reflected light strikes the cones in the retina and then is further interpreted by the brain as "red".

There is a condition of color blindness, caused apparently by certain neural defects which cause the person to not be able to see specific colors or any color at all.

I did not make this up, if you research it you will see that this is the current science on how we see color.

Other than that, I was objecting to the use of the word "consciousness" because of its difficulty in being defined, with so many similar words causing a high degree of ambiguity.

You might also be interested in researching "the God gene", a controversial idea that we humans have actually some neural connections which cause us to seek out communication with some sort of "God" figure.  Again, that is controversial, but how "color" is perceived is not at all controversial.

I wish you well in your spiritual journey and again emphasize that these are my personal views based on 50 years of studying philosophy around this very question, but these views are NOT in any way LDS doctrine, but strictly my personal views AND those of many philosophers. 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Okay... I'd say it is as real as anything else that my eyes see, disallowing optical illusions.

 

Possibly. That's where faith that God has created a real world and ways for us to perceive it comes in imo.

 

Definitely true in the context of "Love never fails." But people who say that and stop there are not generally leaders of tightly-knit groups.

 

It seems like a reasonable assertion. It doesn't look to me like it's necessarily true.

 

Possibly where we disagree. I say, as a matter of faith, that the God in whom we live and move is not a product solely of my own perception.

 

 ‘For in him we live, move, and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ 

Acts 17

 

I don't doubt that many people have similar religious experiences. These feelings can be co-opted by unscrupulous people.

 

There are millions of Jehovah's Witnesses who are convinced that the Watchtower Organization is completely honest and trustworthy in its financial dealings. But they have secret financial records, and to me that's a warning sign, as the list posted by someone else above alluded to.

 

Surely you use visible evidence, information from your eyes. Red means stop, green means go. If you see a guy perform a resurrection, is that useful information? I think it is, easily as useful as the traffic light color.

 

I'm saying that the guy who you see performong the resurrection gets a pass on having public financial records. But, for example, the Watchtower Organization keeping secret records and relying on people's experience in the Kingdom Halls, they don't get a pass from me.

 

I believe that's a better way to live. And that was part of Nelson's talk, IIRC.

AHA! I hadn't seen this -you were writing this same time I was writing my last reply to you.

More later.

As I said earlier, having been through this before, I knew it was going to take a lot of discussion 

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Possibly. That's where faith that God has created a real world and ways for us to perceive it comes in imo.

This is what I (and others) call "experience".

Note the early reference to William James, the guy I quote a lot.

Edited October 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Possibly where we disagree. I say, as a matter of faith, that the God in whom we live and move is not a product solely of my own perception

I agree, I never said that.

The world is obviously around us, you can drive off real cliffs BUT your EXPERIENCE will those of a human being "driving off a cliff"

Experiences of, possibly:

1. "Crashing through a gate "

2. "Falling and spinning"

3. "Seeing the rocks below becoming larger"

4. Human "Pain" in various body areas.

What's after that is no longer "human experience" presumably, we have no language to describe it, if there is a "me" left to describe it, if it could be described.

So yes the world is "real" and remains "real" but all we EXPERIENCE of it, by definition, HAS TO BE "human experience".

There is no way around it. You can't see what you can't see.  

What color are cosmic rays?

We are not equipped to know; the very concept is a non- sequitur if you try to discuss it.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Possibly where we disagree. I say, as a matter of faith, that the God in whom we live and move is not a product solely of my own perception.

 

So yes, we totally agree on that!

So, God is as REAL as the world around us, and we PERCEIVE him through our bodies through what is called "conscience" - a sense of right and wrong, or the "Holy Spirit" and all the variations, just as we experience the "real world" as colors all around us.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Definitely true in the context of "Love never fails." But people who say that and stop there are not generally leaders of tightly-knit groups.

How about this?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/video/discovering-truth

Edited October 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It is a human EXPERIENCE or INTERPRETATION of "redness" which science tells us happens when a certain frequency of reflected light strikes the cones in the retina and then is further interpreted by the brain as "red".

I don't doubt that the brain is involved in interpreting, but I don't agree that my perception of red is a result of my brain alone.

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There is a condition of color blindness, caused apparently by certain neural defects which cause the person to not be able to see specific colors or any color at all.

I did not make this up, if you research it you will see that this is the current science on how we see color.

Absolutely, the brain is involved.

 

Changes in our brains can affect how we perceive reality, yes. But that doesn't mean that reality is a product of our brains only.

 

As an example, I can watch a YouTube video on my cell phone. During the video, I can move a powerful magnet around the phone. This will alter what the screen displays. It doesn't mean, though, that the cell phone created YouTube.

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Other than that, I was objecting to the use of the word "consciousness" because of its difficulty in being defined, with so many similar words causing a high degree of ambiguity.

I agree that it's difficult to define. I can't be sure if other people are experiencing consciousness the way I do, or if they experience it at all. But it does not necessarily follow, then, that it isn't part of the human experience.

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You might also be interested in researching "the God gene", a controversial idea that we humans have actually some neural connections which cause us to seek out communication with some sort of "God" figure.

It seems reasonable that those groups of humans which had a higher sense of the religious - real or imagined - would be better at working together and have better survivability. Just the idea that someone is always watching you, even when others in the village aren't can be a powerful motivator.

 

But that's the purely naturalistic explanation. I believe we have a soul and/or spirit which works in conjunction with our brain to produce consciousness.

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Again, that is controversial, but how "color" is perceived is not at all controversial.

That would also be true of the observance of a resurrection, would it not?

 

Most people would say that the red of the traffic light and the walking-around of the former dead person are useful information.

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I wish you well in your spiritual journey...

Thank you, and also with you 🙂

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

...and again emphasize that these are my personal views based on 50 years of studying philosophy around this very question, but these views are NOT in any way LDS doctrine, but strictly my personal views AND those of many philosophers. 

Thanks for the information 👍