Renlund ties himself in knots during General Conference

[huckelberry]

I'm not sure why this thread has been dragged into discussing paradoxes. It's a very simple matter of Renlund contradicting himself. He claims two mutually exclusive things, which cannot both be true. Either God can only give revelation that is contrary to a commandment to the living Prophet, or God gave Nephi a revelation that was contrary to a commandment - Nephi wasn't the living Prophet at the time he received revelation to kill Laban.

It's as simple and straightforward as that.

I suspect this is a contradiction that Renlund personally struggles to get his head round. His talk makes it clear he has no reasonable explanation for the contradiction and it is therefore probably one of his shelf items. I don't get why he chose to deliver such a mess of a talk if he's allowed to choose his own subject. Maybe the contradiction has been on his mind and he thought delivering the talk was a sought of "a testimony is found in the bearing of it" thing.

Whatever he was thinking, it's a mess of talk, and his public shaming of people who reached out to him is in turn shameful.

IHAQ
I do not know why one should think there was a rule of only one living prophet at a time. I think a rule like that started in the 1830s , not remembering exact date. In Biblical times I do not know of a basis for such a rule.

[PseudoPaul]

That's the problem, there is no way to make such a differentiation. In fact it's been demonstrated empirically that LDS people can be made to feel the spirit via the manipulation of clinical researchers. Revelation can only tell you how you feel about something, no more than that.

Yep.The ‘god center’ of the brain. Interesting stuff. The question is whether manipulation of brain functions is the same as God inspiring the human mind.

Is there an exact one to one correlation?

Can you definitively answer that question?

To me it seems as though God might have ways of inspiring the human mind which don’t require ‘tickling’ the brain only.

Regards,
MG

It's not specific to God - the same pleasure centers light up when engaged in gambling, sex and drug use.

"To me it seems as though God might have ways of inspiring the human mind which don’t require ‘tickling’ the brain only."

What way would that be, and how would you know it was God and not some other cause?

[MG 2.0]

Yep.The ‘god center’ of the brain. Interesting stuff. The question is whether manipulation of brain functions is the same as God inspiring the human mind.

Is there an exact one to one correlation?

Can you definitively answer that question?

To me it seems as though God might have ways of inspiring the human mind which don’t require ‘tickling’ the brain only.

Regards,
MG

It's not specific to God - the same pleasure centers light up when engaged in gambling, sex and drug use.

"To me it seems as though God might have ways of inspiring the human mind which don’t require ‘tickling’ the brain only."

What way would that be, and how would you know it was God and not some other cause?

That’s a great question. Not an easy one to share/transmit to another. For me, it’s more or less intuitive in the sense that I believe that I am experiencing something beyond myself. Something excluding a simple “tickling of the brain”, so to speak. One can only know for themselves whether or not they have received inspiration/revelation.

Unfortunately, these experiences can readily be transmitted/shared with others by means other than using words.

I have gone through periods of life where I have been more or less a strict materialist. As I’ve aged I no longer see materialism as the one and only true faith.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

MG2.0
I have gone through periods of life where I have been more or less a strict materialist. As I’ve aged I no longer see materialism as the one and only true faith.

I am going along this path as well as I age. Materialism is fascinating, and it is necessary, but is it the only thing? I no longer hold that view either. Now that I have been reading the other scientists than just the atheistic ones, I am beginning to see a broader scope.

[JohnW]

During this process, I cut a natural gas line. Natural gas lines simply weren't in my calculations. I didn't realize PVC was sometimes used for natural gas lines. As an aside, shortly after this event I hired the job out.

I know this isn't a great example, but right before I cut that gas line, I was sure it was a water line. I was so sure that it took me quite a few seconds for the truth to work past my logical construct.

That isn't an example of something illogical that is true. That's merely an example of you making a mistake.

You asserted that there are some things that are illogical but nevertheless true. Will you please give me an example of something Illogical that is nevertheless true?

Now you are going to make me work harder. I was hoping I could get away with just the perception of illogical but true. From the individual's perspective, it feels like the same thing. Again, I'm not meaning illogical in the strictest sense.

Let's try something like quantum mechanics. Wave-particle duality. Even though you could argue it isn't strictly illogical, if we are going with a loose sense of the word, it certainly seems illogical. How can particles act like waves or vice versa depending on how we as the observer measure them. Does the logical conclusion assign sentience to the particle? That would be silly. There just isn't a good answer. The whole things seems illogical, even if we can't put our finger on exactly why. It is absolutely true, though. Particles absolutely act like waves and waves act like particles depending on how you look at them.

Let me try one a little more rigorous, even though I'm not that good at logical rigor. Premise 1) a negative number times a negative number is a positive number. Similarly, A * B = C where C is a positive number if both A and B are positive and C is a negative number if either A or B are negative. Premise 2) The square root function (sqrt()) gives the square root of a number D where F^2 = D, and the sign of D is unknown (i.e. sqrt(D) = +- F). Assuming these premises, then the number sqrt(-1) is impossible. There is no logical way we can get an answer from these rules. It doesn't exist. You might even call it an imaginary number. All sorts of logical arguments could be made (and were made) as to why this travesty of a number cannot exist. Of course, we all know imaginary numbers are absolutely true.

I know I may be cheating a little here, but the point is that when you have missing premises or incomplete information, you will argue with complete confidence that something is illogical, even though in reality it is true. People did this all through the Middle Ages about imaginary numbers (which was originally intended as a derogatory term). People do this today, without realizing it. Yes, I know if we had absolutely all information, you might have a good argument that there is nothing that is illogical and still true, but functionally that is never the case. So functionally, things appear completely illogical all the time but are still completely true.

[Morley]

That isn't an example of something illogical that is true. That's merely an example of you making a mistake.

You asserted that there are some things that are illogical but nevertheless true. Will you please give me an example of something Illogical that is nevertheless true?

Now you are going to make me work harder. I was hoping I could get away with just the perception of illogical but true. From the individual's perspective, it feels like the same thing. Again, I'm not meaning illogical in the strictest sense.

Let's try something like quantum mechanics. Wave-particle duality. Even though you could argue it isn't strictly illogical, if we are going with a loose sense of the word, it certainly seems illogical. How can particles act like waves or vice versa depending on how we as the observer measure them. Does the logical conclusion assign sentience to the particle? That would be silly. There just isn't a good answer. The whole things seems illogical, even if we can't put our finger on exactly why. It is absolutely true, though. Particles absolutely act like waves and waves act like particles depending on how you look at them.

Let me try one a little more rigorous, even though I'm not that good at logical rigor. Premise 1) a negative number times a negative number is a positive number. Similarly, A * B = C where C is a positive number if both A and B are positive and C is a negative number if either A or B are negative. Premise 2) The square root function (sqrt()) gives the square root of a number D where F^2 = D, and the sign of D is unknown (i.e. sqrt(D) = +- F). Assuming these premises, then the number sqrt(-1) is impossible. There is no logical way we can get an answer from these rules. It doesn't exist. You might even call it an imaginary number. All sorts of logical arguments could be made (and were made) as to why this travesty of a number cannot exist. Of course, we all know imaginary numbers are absolutely true.

I know I may be cheating a little here, but the point is that when you have missing premises or incomplete information, you will argue with complete confidence that something is illogical, even though in reality it is true. People did this all through the Middle Ages about imaginary numbers (which was originally intended as a derogatory term). People do this today, without realizing it. Yes, I know if we had absolutely all information, you might have a good argument that there is nothing that is illogical and still true, but functionally that is never the case. So functionally, things appear completely illogical all the time but are still completely true.

You're not really demonstrating that there are things that are illogical but nevertheless true.

What you seem to be saying is that some things may appear to some people to be illogical but true. That means little, since any given fact can seem illogical to some person, some place, some time. So basically, every fact is illogical but true. Which is pretty meaningless.

[Dr Moore]

What I find most enduring about Roddenberry's Spock character is that he's a microcosm of humanity looking on itself. At our very best, we aspire to explore the perfectly logical and yet permit ourselves to indulge in beautifully illogical acts. Each of us can think in raw dispassionate clarity and yet make purely emotional choices. Things such as raising children with birth defects and spending astronomical sums on end of life healthcare. We celebrate "divine" (a.k.a., illogical) acts in film, art and stories.

At the same time, we look back on ourselves and examine how our illogical tendencies might be subroutines in some meta logic which serves a greater aim. We can't help it, I guess. Whatever. Congratulations to all of you -- you get to be alive.

As re Renlund et al., what very few people in the world are willing to celebrate is the promotion of illogical thinking to buttress the power of a small group. That generally is what the bad guy does. The good guy (or girl) admits when he's full of crap and the people see truth, and power, in that confession. They celebrate it.

I was once one of the few who celebrated the contradictory LDS leadership, but not because I became convinced of their ultimate consistency. It was simply because I was raised with an expectation that what those few men did was justifiable because those men were justified. I ignored the illogic. But now that I see it, it's everywhere. Sometimes it's silly nonsense. Sometimes repulsive. But anyway, humanity is pretty good at sussing out such things and the data pretty much speaks for itself when it comes to the performance of Mormonism under its current leadership model.

[JohnW]

What you seem to be saying is that some things may appear to some people to be illogical but true. That means little, since any given fact can seem illogical to some person, some place, some time. So basically, every fact is illogical but true. Which is pretty meaningless.

I think that is exactly what I am saying. Only it isn't meaningless. On the contrary, it may be the only thing that is meaningful when discussing how humans interact with logic. You see, whenever we interact with logic we can only perceive it imperfectly because of a lack of information. It's hard to explain.

Let me try to come up with an example: Your child asks why the sky is blue. You respond that the reason is Raleigh scattering. Your child dismisses that as nonsense and responds that she had heard that airplane contrails have a blue tint to them and that spreads out to cause the sky to be blue. You accuse her of being illogical. Well, if she has no concept of Raleigh scattering (which is the real reason the sky is blue), then all sorts of things can be logical from her perspective. Little kids could even argue that someone splashed too much blue paint in the sky. Frankly, when dealing with logic, we are much more like little kids than we would like to admit.

[Marcus]

I'm not sure why this thread has been dragged into discussing paradoxes. It's a very simple matter of Renlund contradicting himself. He claims two mutually exclusive things, which cannot both be true. Either God can only give revelation that is contrary to a commandment to the living Prophet, or God gave Nephi a revelation that was contrary to a commandment - Nephi wasn't the living Prophet at the time he received revelation to kill Laban.

It's as simple and straightforward as that.

I suspect this is a contradiction that Renlund personally struggles to get his head round. His talk makes it clear he has no reasonable explanation for the contradiction and it is therefore probably one of his shelf items. I don't get why he chose to deliver such a mess of a talk if he's allowed to choose his own subject. Maybe the contradiction has been on his mind and he thought delivering the talk was a sought of "a testimony is found in the bearing of it" thing.

Whatever he was thinking, it's a mess of talk, and his public shaming of people who reached out to him is in turn shameful.

Well, I can’t figure it out either, but i did find this encapsulation of his talk online that I thought you might enjoy:

…Renlund:

After we're baptized we can receive revelation and everyone that asks will receive answers from God through the feelings of the spirit. But if you're getting feelings from the spirit that are outside of the church's framework then you've been deceived. Above all, you have to ask believing that you'll receive an answer. If you've received revelation for others then you've been tricked, unless you're the prophet. You know the prophet is the true prophet because he receives revelation for others. If you receive revelation that you're a prophet then you're wrong, but if the prophet receives revelation that he's a prophet then he's right and you can know he's right by getting revelation from God that he's right. You can also get revelation that says that you're right but you already know that's wrong because you're not the prophet. If your answers aren't in line with what God has said through his prophets who are the real prophets then you've been tricked.

You are allowed to get revelation from God on what career to have, where to live and who to marry. If you ask God if it's okay to worship him in nature instead of in the prophet's church buildings then you're doing it wrong because the prophet has told you no, so if you get a different answer then you're being tricked. If you pray for things that aren't in line with what the prophet or church want you to pray about then "we open ourselves up to misinterpreting our feelings and hearing what we want to hear" rather than correctly interpreting your feelings by hearing only what the church and prophet want you to hear. If you receive revelation that's contrary to God's commandments via other revelation then you've been tricked. Even though the feeling is just like the revelation you get from God it's actually Satan tricking you and you can tell the difference because the revelation is contrary to other commandments, except sometimes God also tells you to do things that are against his other commandments like Nephi killing Laban so actually there's no explanation, "no simple explanation is completely satisfactory." But also Nephi didn't want to kill Laban and "Nephi was sure it was revelation."

So, if you receive revelation that's contrary to God's other revelations then you're not being tricked so long as it's something that you believe you don't want to do, and you're sure it's revelation. If God has answered a question and the circumstances haven't changed then the answer won't be any different, so don't ask again or you might get a different answer like Joseph Smith did with the lost pages debacle. "I invite you to have the confidence to claim personal revelation for yourself" as long as it's "consistent with the scriptures and the commandments he's given through his appointed prophets and within your own purview and agency."

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... a/iqnzqp2/

Someone posted in response:

Congrats Renlund. “…what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.“

-Billy Madison. Prophet and Seer

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... a/iqo1bw9/

[Morley]

What you seem to be saying is that some things may appear to some people to be illogical but true. That means little, since any given fact can seem illogical to some person, some place, some time. So basically, every fact is illogical but true. Which is pretty meaningless.

I think that is exactly what I am saying. Only it isn't meaningless. On the contrary, it may be the only thing that is meaningful when discussing how humans interact with logic. You see, whenever we interact with logic we can only perceive it imperfectly because of a lack of information. It's hard to explain.

Let me try to come up with an example: Your child asks why the sky is blue. You respond that the reason is Raleigh scattering. Your child dismisses that as nonsense and responds that she had heard that airplane contrails have a blue tint to them and that spreads out to cause the sky to be blue. You accuse her of being illogical. Well, if she has no concept of Raleigh scattering (which is the real reason the sky is blue), then all sorts of things can be logical from her perspective. Little kids could even argue that someone splashed too much blue paint in the sky. Frankly, when dealing with logic, we are much more like little kids than we would like to admit.

John: You're comparing the failed logic of a cardiologist who serves as an Apostle in the One True Church (as he speaks to the entire world in a conference broadcast), to yourself as you mistake a gas line for a waterline, and to a wee child asking why the sky is blue. You're suggesting all three of you miss the mark because you're all innocently ignorant. None of these are examples of something being illogical but nevertheless true.