Gorman wrote:Yes, certain things can be resolved before going forward. Other things simply cannot.
Ah, then it would be better to resolve the question you think you can and explain why you think the others one cannot be resolved and why one should ignore them.
Gorman wrote:I like to think we aren't here to prove anything in the sense of 'showing'. We are here in a proving grounds.
So were not here to prove anything but were in a proving ground? Hmm ok
You are really just making others point that this life doesn't really matter other then getting a body.
We are here to practice at being gods. This can only be done in a god-like environment.
In what way? Infants who die obviously would not get any experience other then a body. The only thing one could say is someone who is LDS and lives well into adulthood may be a little ahead of dead infants and others who never heard of the gospel. But if we have eternities to become perfect/complete then it really doesn't matter.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gorman wrote:Please excuse me for trying to diagnose your problem, but you may have what we Mormons call, "trusting in the arm of the flesh." To put it succinctly, we think we know so much. This is a very common malady in modern society, and on the internet especially. Something in life convinces us that 1) logic and reason are the masters of all they survey, and 2) that our ability to use logic and reason are sufficient to tackle anything that presents itself before us. Both of these conclusions are dead wrong. The good news is, we only have to acknowledge one as wrong in order to cure us from this age-old plague. Number one fails because logic is only as good as its assumptions (both said and unsaid). Number two fails, because contrary to what we think, none of us are that smart (both individually and collectively)
[emphasis added]
Gorman, who is really "trusting in the arm of the flesh?" Those who base their convictions on the realities indicated by honest and diligent scientific inquiry, or those whose convictions are a product of faith based religious claims?
From the above link:
So who is really relying on the arm of flesh and who is relying on the arm of reality or are they one in the same? Isn't belief in something because it is a tradition or because an authority figure tells you to believe in it relying on the arm of flesh? One of the questions Mormons must answer in the affirmative to be judged 'worthy' to enter the temple is as follows:
"Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer and Revelator and as the only person on earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the church?" Doesn't this sound more like trusting in the arm of flesh than the scientific method? Is the scientific method really relying on the arm of the flesh when one of its foremost points is to question authority and attempt to prove long held false beliefs to be just that--false?
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Gorman wrote:Please excuse me for trying to diagnose your problem, but you may have what we Mormons call, "trusting in the arm of the flesh." To put it succinctly, we think we know so much. This is a very common malady in modern society, and on the internet especially. Something in life convinces us that 1) logic and reason are the masters of all they survey, and 2) that our ability to use logic and reason are sufficient to tackle anything that presents itself before us. Both of these conclusions are dead wrong. The good news is, we only have to acknowledge one as wrong in order to cure us from this age-old plague. Number one fails because logic is only as good as its assumptions (both said and unsaid). Number two fails, because contrary to what we think, none of us are that smart (both individually and collectively)
[emphasis added]
Gorman, who is really "trusting in the arm of the flesh?" Those who base their convictions on the realities indicated by honest and diligent scientific inquiry, or those whose convictions are a product of faith based religious claims?
From the above link:
So who is really relying on the arm of flesh and who is relying on the arm of reality or are they one in the same? Isn't belief in something because it is a tradition or because an authority figure tells you to believe in it relying on the arm of flesh? One of the questions Mormons must answer in the affirmative to be judged 'worthy' to enter the temple is as follows:
"Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer and Revelator and as the only person on earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the church?" Doesn't this sound more like trusting in the arm of flesh than the scientific method? Is the scientific method really relying on the arm of the flesh when one of its foremost points is to question authority and attempt to prove long held false beliefs to be just that--false?
Are You relying on the arm of flesh --- of the highlighted above in orange --- or on the arm of flesh of another authorities?
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Gorman wrote:Please excuse me for trying to diagnose your problem, but you may have what we Mormons call, "trusting in the arm of the flesh." To put it succinctly, we think we know so much. This is a very common malady in modern society, and on the internet especially. Something in life convinces us that 1) logic and reason are the masters of all they survey, and 2) that our ability to use logic and reason are sufficient to tackle anything that presents itself before us. Both of these conclusions are dead wrong. The good news is, we only have to acknowledge one as wrong in order to cure us from this age-old plague. Number one fails because logic is only as good as its assumptions (both said and unsaid). Number two fails, because contrary to what we think, none of us are that smart (both individually and collectively)
[emphasis added]
Gorman, who is really "trusting in the arm of the flesh?" Those who base their convictions on the realities indicated by honest and diligent scientific inquiry, or those whose convictions are a product of faith based religious claims?
From the above link:
So who is really relying on the arm of flesh and who is relying on the arm of reality or are they one in the same? Isn't belief in something because it is a tradition or because an authority figure tells you to believe in it relying on the arm of flesh? One of the questions Mormons must answer in the affirmative to be judged 'worthy' to enter the temple is as follows:
"Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer and Revelator and as the only person on earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the church?" Doesn't this sound more like trusting in the arm of flesh than the scientific method? Is the scientific method really relying on the arm of the flesh when one of its foremost points is to question authority and attempt to prove long held false beliefs to be just that--false?
ludwigm wrote:Are You relying on the arm of flesh --- of the highlighted above in orange --- or on the arm of flesh of another authorities?
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking if I rely on the "arm of flesh" of the author of the essay I linked to? I can assure you I have no need to do so. I know from my own experience from when I was a TBM that that is one of the questions asked (or, at least, used to be asked) in temple recommend interviews.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Someone who "follows the Prophet" is technically following the arm of the flesh, at least I think that's what's being said here.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Flaming Meaux wrote:Remarkable argument that reveals the LDS view of God's plan to be fundamentally immoral. Surprisingly, you seem to have used it as an attempt to portray this immorality in a positive light?
Sorry, but I didn't quite catch the immorality part. Maybe you could point it out to me?
Hmmm... Maybe you are thinking of morality/immorality only in the narrow sense that many LDS believers do, where the term is exclusively a euphemism to get around saying "sex," "sexual," or "sexuality." Yes, that's likely the problem. I was using the term in the broader sense as it is generally defined by the other 99.998% of the planet. Does that clear up your confusion?
Someone who "follows the Prophet" is technically following the arm of the flesh, at least I think that's what's being said here.
Of course! It should have been obvious to me that that was what Ludwig was pointing out and reemphasizing. My bad!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Someone who "follows the Prophet" is technically following the arm of the flesh, at least I think that's what's being said here.
that was what Ludwig was pointing out
Yes. Don't follow Mary Baker Eddy, don't follow Warren Jeffs, don't follow Ron Hubbard --- follow OUR LEADER instead. Joseph Smith and TSM.
Do they say similar stupidities? Doesn't count. This is the onlyone, the onlytrue. And don't forget your 10% in every month.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
My bad!