Making Covenants

[huckelberry]

I am not sure just how the comparison applies to this subject but to my mind there is significant different between a promise to aim at being honest helpful trustworthy and kind compared to a loyalty promise.

I am sort of stuck with my boy scout age Christian connection.

[MG 2.0]

But there are so many competing philosophies and worldly distractions that can pull one away from the covenants that have been made with God I think that reinforcement and additional light and knowledge can act as a bulwark against losing one’s connection with God and the Savior

Had you not read Muhlestein's book to reinforce your bulwark, what philosophy would most likely distract you from your connection with the Savior?

Years ago I read Karen Armstrong’s book, “A History of God”. And then a few years(?) later…time gets rather fuzzy…I read Jared Diamond’s book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel”. During these years I was also bouncing around reading Bart Ehrman, the Tanners, Quinn, and a LOT of other stuff. Oh, yeah, then there was B.F. Skinner. A lot of younger folks around here probably never heard of him.

And YES, you numbskulls , I read all of these books, including many I’m not mentioning. Believe it or not, as Ripley would say.

Anyway, already having grown up in a Sunstone/Dialogue/Psychology Today home I was prepped for becoming a disaffected member of the church and all things religious (at least as far as orthodoxy is concerned).

So it wasn’t just ‘a philosophy’ it was the views and ideas express that had philosophical underpinnings that held my interest and impacted my worldview for a number of years. But along with all of that I remained active in the church, held a recommend, had callings, etc.

But I’m not saying that it wasn’t a rough ride. That’s why at times I’ve expressed a degree of empathy for those here that might be in the middle of ‘the stuff’, or may have come out the other end as a disbeliever or critic.

Long story made short, I’ve come out the other end, so to speak, with my faith intact. Although, as with others that have been ‘through the mill’ I went through a period of deconstruction and reconstruction of my faith.

If you don't mind me saying, ever since I've read your posts, you've struck me as someone with a near indestructible bulwark. I have a hard time imagining any idea -- of the ideas I know about of course -- being the slightest bit distracting to your basic beliefs in God and the Savior. And so, I really don't think you needed to read Muhlestein's book or really, any LDS publications. Although, feel free to do as you wish, but if you disagree with me, I would be interested in the ideas you find most threatening to the bulwark.

I think I’ve brushed over the time capsule of ‘ideas’ that I’ve sailed through to arrive where I’m at.

If we were to break bread together…like do lunch, man, ha ha…I think we would be able to understand each other better. I could go on and on with the roller coaster of ideas I’ve read and come in contact with since I was a teen. That’s been a long while back now!

Unfortunately, I can’t make others (Doc, for example) believe me…but, oh well. It is what it is.

Anyways, that’s for starters.

I have faith in the Savior and that He is the creator/redeemer of mankind. That God is our Father. And that the Spirit/Holy Ghost can lead us towards truth. Sometimes, for some folks, it can be a long haul.

I don’t have a lot of patience for those that ‘jump ship’ at a relatively early age though. Faith and the truth claims, specifically, of the CofJCof LDS are important enough to not cast aside without a thorough investigation. Not saying that you and others haven’t done your due diligence and have come out the other end in a different place than believers that have also done due diligence.

We can coexist.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

In I Nephi Chapter 19:23-24 Nephi is teaching his brothers and he asks them to liken the scriptures unto themselves. What he was really saying is that the scriptures that they had access to were describing the covenant people of the Lord and their relationship to Him through the Abrahamic Covenant. Thus the scriptures were directly applicable to them as they were also of the House of Israel. We can then make that same application to our own lives as covenant people of the Lord. We also can seek the promised blessings of Abraham. I hadn’t directly considered that this may have been what Nephi was referring to when he asked his brothers (and us) to liken the scriptures unto ourselves.

These are my own thoughts and extrapolations from my reading, not a direct quote this time around.

umm, no. You’ve been lulled into complacency by Peterson’s plagiarism. What you’ve stated above is not your own thoughts and extrapolations, but rather what Peterson would describe pompously as “paraphrastic notes.” Defined by the rest of the world, including byu, as mosaic plagiarism.

Here’s Muhlestein’s original:

…In 1 Nephi 19:23, Nephi tells us that he tried to help his brothers by likening the scriptures to themselves…. in the preceding verses Nephi had been talking about the promises to Israel. In the following verse he shares what he did to entreat them to liken the scriptures to themselves, explaining, “I spake unto them, saying: Hear ye the words of the prophet, ye who are a remnant of the house of Israel, …and liken them unto yourselves” (1 Nephi 19:24).

Thus we can see that what Nephi was really saying was that the scriptures were about the covenant people; Laman and Lemuel were covenant people, therefore they should have directly applied scriptures about the covenant and covenant people to themselves. This is as true for us as it was for them. When we recognize the covenantal references and realize that we are part of that same covenant, then the scriptures speak to our lives and situations in a much more direct and powerful way….

there’s nothing wrong with quoting someone’s work, and it’s much preferable to paraphrastic-Peterson-plagiarism. Just stick with normal quoting, and give credit where credit is due!

But, please, keep going. There is 20% more of the free sample left after this section.

I probably will. Thanks for the encouragement. Of course, I’m going to go beyond that 20%.

You can too, if you buy the book.

Regards,
MG

if, by encouragement, you mean that you will stop mosiacally plagiarizing and calling it your own thoughts and extrapolations, great.

... Despite the criticisms focused on me and the way I’m presenting information from the book combined with my own impressions/thoughts/emphasis…rather than with the contents and teachings found in the book…

nope, i guess you didn't get my point.

[MG 2.0]

nope, i guess you didn't get my point.

I don’t consider you as one that I have any real inclination to give much credence to. There are those that I listen to and take seriously. You’re not one of them.

Don’t take that personally. It’s just a fact.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

nope, i guess you didn't get my point.

I don’t consider you as one that I have any real inclination to give much credence to. There are those that I listen to and take seriously. You’re not one of them.

Don’t take that personally. It’s just a fact.

Regards,
MG

This is coming from a lolcow, so …

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

I don’t consider you as one that I have any real inclination to give much credence to. There are those that I listen to and take seriously. You’re not one of them.

Don’t take that personally. It’s just a fact.

Regards,
MG

This is coming from a lolcow, so …

- Doc

And you’re another…

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

nope, i guess you didn't get my point.

I don’t consider you as one that I have any real inclination to give much credence to. There are those that I listen to and take seriously. You’re not one of them.

Don’t take that personally. It’s just a fact.

Regards,
MG

I absolutely agree it's a fact you don't want to give credence to proof you used a plagiarism technique, but it's also a fact that the mosaic plagiarism that you called "...my own thoughts and extrapolations from my reading, not a direct quote this time around..." is documented.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is coming from a lolcow, so …

- Doc

And you’re another…

Regards,
MG

Do you believe in a historical figure called Egyptus? Because if you do, that’s pret-ty cringe and lolcowzy.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

Had you not read Muhlestein's book to reinforce your bulwark, what philosophy would most likely distract you from your connection with the Savior?

Years ago I read Karen Armstrong’s book, “A History of God”. And then a few years(?) later…time gets rather fuzzy…I read Jared Diamond’s book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel”. During these years I was also bouncing around reading Bart Ehrman, the Tanners, Quinn, and a LOT of other stuff. Oh, yeah, then there was B.F. Skinner. A lot of younger folks around here probably never heard of him.

And YES, you numbskulls , I read all of these books, including many I’m not mentioning. Believe it or not, as Ripley would say.

Anyway, already having grown up in a Sunstone/Dialogue/Psychology Today home I was prepped for becoming a disaffected member of the church and all things religious (at least as far as orthodoxy is concerned).

So it wasn’t just ‘a philosophy’ it was the views and ideas express that had philosophical underpinnings that held my interest and impacted my worldview for a number of years. But along with all of that I remained active in the church, held a recommend, had callings, etc.

But I’m not saying that it wasn’t a rough ride. That’s why at times I’ve expressed a degree of empathy for those here that might be in the middle of ‘the stuff’, or may have come out the other end as a disbeliever or critic.

Long story made short, I’ve come out the other end, so to speak, with my faith intact. Although, as with others that have been ‘through the mill’ I went through a period of deconstruction and reconstruction of my faith.

If you don't mind me saying, ever since I've read your posts, you've struck me as someone with a near indestructible bulwark. I have a hard time imagining any idea -- of the ideas I know about of course -- being the slightest bit distracting to your basic beliefs in God and the Savior. And so, I really don't think you needed to read Muhlestein's book or really, any LDS publications. Although, feel free to do as you wish, but if you disagree with me, I would be interested in the ideas you find most threatening to the bulwark.

I think I’ve brushed over the time capsule of ‘ideas’ that I’ve sailed through to arrive where I’m at.

If we were to break bread together…like do lunch, man, ha ha…I think we would be able to understand each other better. I could go on and on with the roller coaster of ideas I’ve read and come in contact with since I was a teen. That’s been a long while back now!

Unfortunately, I can’t make others (Doc, for example) believe me…but, oh well. It is what it is.

Anyways, that’s for starters.

I have faith in the Savior and that He is the creator/redeemer of mankind. That God is our Father. And that the Spirit/Holy Ghost can lead us towards truth. Sometimes, for some folks, it can be a long haul.

I don’t have a lot of patience for those that ‘jump ship’ at a relatively early age though. Faith and the truth claims, specifically, of the CofJCof LDS are important enough to not cast aside without a thorough investigation. Not saying that you and others haven’t done your due diligence and have come out the other end in a different place than believers that have also done due diligence.

We can coexist.

Regards,
MG

Oh, I almost forgot. Steven Pinker and his blank slate theory. That came along and…wow.

I guess nowadays his name might also be unfamiliar to some of the whipper snappers.

Hope all of this helps, Gadianton. LOTS of distractions!

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh, I almost forgot. Steven Pinker and his blank slate theory. That came along and…wow.

Wanna know how I know MG is lying about having read Pinker’s book the blank slate?

wOw! uWu!



- Doc