Chumps, I'll see ya around

[_harmony]

So what if you don't think Joseph Smith was a good enough person in order to be a Prophet according to your standards?

The issue isn't with Thews' standards. The issue is with God's.

Offer the reasons you believe the Prophets of the Old Testament WERE Prophets - what was different about them with their weaknesses and fallibilities which you are able to look past and still accept them as Prophets?

Not them either.

Of course, the tough thing about that is we just don't have the same type of information available about them which we have available about Joseph Smith. Their records are long gone.

Many thanks to the scribes who followed him around, especially Oliver, who caught him red-handed... or rather, bare bummed.

Consider, for instance, Abraham telling the people that God told him to sacrifice his son, Isaac. What people, today, would be able to wrap their heads around that concept, and then think that Abraham was a sane person? Or how could they see how it is he took his wife's handmaiden to bed, had a son with her, and then kicked them both out of his household into the desert and believe that this guy even had a heart. Yet he is the first Patriarch - and the one whom the Jews revere as their own father - the one who covenanted with God?

Abraham is an example of a mega-myth. That does not mean he actually existed, ever.

Religion is not God. My relationship is not with the LDS Church; it is with God. The LDS Church is the institution with which I feel most comfortable celebrating my relationship with God. I believe that all of mankind can work out their own salvation no matter where they hang their hat.

While I agree with the way you think, I doubt the Brethren would agree with you. Or me.

[_jo1952]

jo, like thews I think you come across as a nice person.

Thanks, Drifting. Behind your bravado I think you are a nice person, too. At least you don't scare me like some posters do; though I love you all.

But interaction on this board will probably change you (or you will stop posting) because a testimony isn't sufficient a contribution to the discussions. You need to support your testimony with something more substantial than a feeling - and you won't be able to. When you come to the conclusion of a thread you will see that your testimony and feelings are at odds with all other rational and reasonable substance and study. Or, if intellectually honest with yourself, it may change your opinions about things.

It's interesting you would say this. When I first got involved with Apologetics, I was so astounded by the anti-LDS anger and hate. So I started reading all of the anti-LDS literature and references and thought for a while that it might shake up my testimony. What I came to realize, however, that this worldly stuff didn't make one bit of difference. I saw, even with what little we know about the Old Testament Prophets, that they were also imperfect. In fact, as I got down to the nitty=gritty of seeing what my beliefs really looked like, something unexpected happened. The world, and how I viewed it, changed. My spiritual understanding began to skyrocket. I also came to understand that the Church is NOT the only pathway to return to Father. Layers and layers of understanding became available to my spirit, as well as types and patterns. I got to learn about Hebrew customs and now understand all scripture at a level I never saw or understood before. It has been quite the trip.

For instance - you have a testimony that the Book of Mormon is a true record of the first inhabitants of the American continent. Clearly, by any other measurement of evidence apart from the feeling in your heart, it isn't what it claims to be.

Meh....that is your interpretation. Mine is different. So what if our perceptions are different? What does this have to do with our personal relationship with God? Don't let religion or doctrine get between you and God.

You seem to overcome questions posed to you by bearing a testimony about what you feel.
Sorry, but that isn't enough for me in this environment.

However, my comments are Biblically supported. So, unless your problem is that you don't believe in God, there is no amount of substantive worldly evidence which you can produce which can over-ride what is taught spiritually by the Holy Ghost in support of the messages taught in the Bible. We do not walk in proof or physical evidence. Our journey is supposed to be a spiritual journey and how we deal with the world while we are here. So, we may have to just agree to disagree on many subjects. It's no big deal to me. What will always be the big deal to me is that I give glory to the Most High God. That is where my joy is - in loving Him, loving my Savior, and loving mankind. You may not be able to understand this; but that is where I am coming from. I sense that you love the posters, or that you try to love the posters on this board, even though you do not necessarily agree with them. Am I reading you wrong? I would say that we actually have a lot in common.

I hope you do stay around and contribute because you represent a fresh look at aspects of the Mormon religion - specifically the spirituality element. That has led to some very interesting discussions, at least I think so.

I appreciate that, and hope to be able to continue to resemble that remark! I think you will get a kick out of some of my takes - as often they may at first blush appear to be quite off the wall; but eventually you will see that they don't actually disagree as much as they expand upon the traditionally interpreted LDS beliefs. Thus, I would like to make it clear that my descriptions and ponderings are strictly my own and may or may not be representative of what the Church "officially" teaches.

Love,

jo

[_jo1952]

"harmony"]

The issue isn't with Thews' standards. The issue is with God's.

Not them either.

Many thanks to the scribes who followed him around, especially Oliver, who caught him red-handed... or rather, bare bummed.

Hey Harmony!

I think this our first conversation. How are you???? (Who are you????)

Haha - I sure do wish sometimes that we had records, both pro and con, that were written by people who knew the Old Testament prophets. I suppose scripture, as it is, without all of the other information available, is a big enough stumbling block for us. I particularly like Jonah, whom I call the reluctant prophet. I laugh every time I read about his adventures.

Abraham is an example of a mega-myth. That does not mean he actually existed, ever.

Interesting; so you don't believe that Abraham actually existed? Do you think the Hebrews have founded their belief system upon a myth; i.e., that there really is no Covenant between God and Abraham, or, IS there a God of Abraham, etc?

While I agree with the way you think, I doubt the Brethren would agree with you. Or me.

You might be right about that. So far, though, I haven't run into any Bishops or Stake Presidents who have argued with me. I suppose time will tell.....

Love,

jo

[_jo1952]

jo,

I'm glad you're here, and no, you are not a pain in anyone's butt. It's great that you are willing to share your thoughts and beliefs here, and even your testimony. I would just caution that most people here expect support for their ideas; otherwise, it can get a little hairy.

Hi Runtu!

You seem like a very nice person; I'm pleased to meet you!

Yeah, I have already run into some hairy posts here. I've been beaten up quite a bit on other boards. Heck, as Kind as I try to be in my posts, I found that just disagreeing with the powers that be over on MD&B got me banned....from an LDS website!!! I've been posting on Apologetic boards for over three years and had never been banned before. Then I get banned from a website that professes to be of the same religious institution as me. Go figure.....

I'm looking forward to getting into some discussions with you!

Love,

jo

[_jo1952]

Hey jo...

You're not a pain in the butt. You do have a different take on things LDS and I enjoy hearing about it. Even if you and I don't agree on some things, you strike me as thoughtful enough to not let that impede any conversation we may have.

I'm not concerned about the state of anyone's testimony and I don't care if one is a believer or not. My interests on this board are much more historical than theological, so I rarely get into discussions where religious belief is battled about.

Hey Blixa!

I have already come to enjoy your posts and time in the chat room! You are a straight shooter and give posters the freedom to share their thoughts without the need to come off with any greater-than-thou attitudes. I appreciate that - especially in a well-learned individual like yourself. You seem to be a very sound and reasonable thinker.

Love,

jo

[_mfbukowski]

Jo

Thanks for your kind words- I think we understand each other pretty well.

[_Runtu]

Hi Runtu!

You seem like a very nice person; I'm pleased to meet you!

Yeah, I have already run into some hairy posts here. I've been beaten up quite a bit on other boards. Heck, as Kind as I try to be in my posts, I found that just disagreeing with the powers that be over on MD&B got me banned....from an LDS website!!! I've been posting on Apologetic boards for over three years and had never been banned before. Then I get banned from a website that professes to be of the same religious institution as me. Go figure.....

I'm looking forward to getting into some discussions with you!

Love,

jo

I got banned there, too, so you're in good company. :-) It's nice to have a different perspective here. We could use more from the believing Mormon side.

[_harmony]

I think this our first conversation. How are you???? (Who are you????)

Haha - I sure do wish sometimes that we had records, both pro and con, that were written by people who knew the Old Testament prophets. I suppose scripture, as it is, without all of the other information available, is a big enough stumbling block for us. I particularly like Jonah, whom I call the reluctant prophet. I laugh every time I read about his adventures.

I'm curious as to how you ended up in the LDS church, where modern prophets are revered, not ancient ones.

And I'm curious to hear what you think of the concept of Heavenly Mother?

Abraham is an example of a mega-myth. That does not mean he actually existed, ever.

Interesting; so you don't believe that Abraham actually existed? Do you think the Hebrews have founded their belief system upon a myth; i.e., that there really is no Covenant between God and Abraham, or, IS there a God of Abraham, etc?

I think the concept of Isreal was created by men, not by God.

So far, though, I haven't run into any Bishops or Stake Presidents who have argued with me. I suppose time will tell.....

When you start publishing what you think, that's when you may get to hear form your bishop and SP. Until then, you can fly under the radar with me.

[_mfbukowski]

Anyone want to suggest a primer on postmodernity? You can post it here or shoot me a PM. Thanks.

If you can wait til the weekend (and possibly remind me again because I'm in the last week of the semester), I'll pm you the two page handout I use to introduce postmodern ideas to freshmen as well as a suggested introductory text or two.

Stak is very kind. I would not say I have published a great deal on postmodernism, but I have taught classes in postmodern theory for close to 25 years now. I also once directed a person's master's thesis on postmodern theory for a dual masters in philosophy and literature. I also exist in traces on the margin: I show up in a book on Gayatri Spivak and in the Index, next to the name Marx, Karl, in a book on postmodernity and Latin American art and in the footnotes of a couple of books on pedagogy and postmodernism.

If you can't wait, I daresay you could look up the old thread where runtu tried to break down the anti-foundational "foundations" of postmodern thought for MFB. Runtu has a solid understanding; after all he had the opportunity to take classes from and study with Terry Eagleton. Alas, I only had the opportunity to take a few seminars with Paul de Man, Derrida, Fredric Jameson and Gayatri Spivak.

Well I think I owe you an apology- it's just that it seemed to me that every reply you have made to me for the last few threads I have participated in have been snarky one liners and from those it was not apparent to me that you had any idea what you were talking about.

I make no pretense of being an expert on whatever "Postmodernism" is, from an architectural style to a type of music, but I am confident that it is not easy to define. To me it seems to be a rather vague categorization primarily used in literary criticism which is pretty clearly anti-realist and anti-foundationalist, pro-constructivist, but beyond that pretty vague.

Habermas of course finds it self-contradictory.

I AM interested in specific, defined philosophical positions which may be perceived to be in the "postmodern camp", but frankly I have never seen the term itself well defined, and many scholars seem to think that such a definition does not exist.

I would be very willing to hear what you have to say about it and hope to learn about how you see these issues. I am always interested in serious dialogue, but responses like "lol" tend to get dismissed.

[Guest]

Going back through those threads was interesting.

One of the posts I appreciated most was one, amazingly, by Stak:

viewtopic.php?p=400667#p400667

Maybe I should hang around here a bit more after all.

MfBukowski,

I’ve never really treated you well, and have taken too many unnecessary shots at you now and in the past. I’ve never treated you as you should have been treated and in the process, created a hostile environment for you. I apologize and take full responsibility for any nastiness that we’ve shared.

I wonder if that still stands.