Went through the Temple last week...

[_mentalgymnast]

You have made a point of defining the experience and intuitive understandings of members of the LDS church as being absurd.

No I didn't.

Well, you did say:

If in the end Mormonism is just a "feel good" (spirtual) religion (MG:In other words's, intuitive understandings) that encourages charity and doing good to others (MG:In other words's, experiences), that's fine. If it raises your "noble impulses", that's fine. But if in order to accomplish this you have to believe in absurdities, that's not fine.

I maintain that:

This logic of narrative rationality entails/permits a revised conception of knowledge...one that permits the possibility of wisdom. Wisdom values experience and intuitive understanding.

Somewhat different than the traditional approach/view in regards to rationality which more often than not results in cold, hard, skepticism. That's the brand of rationality seen around here more often than not.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Again, I think Joseph Smith observed these tendencies in some of those around him. David Whitmer for example. Are tradition and rationality intertwined?

David Whitmer? How do you deduce this?

Didn't he have some problems with the King Follett discourse? Did tradition play a part? His rational sense?

Regards,
MG

[_Ray A]

How strong is your reading comprehension, MG?

You bolded the wrong part. Here is the part you should have bolded:

If in the end Mormonism is just a "feel good" (spirtual) religion (MG:In other words's, intuitive understandings) that encourages charity and doing good to others (MG:In other words's, experiences), that's fine. If it raises your "noble impulses", that's fine. But if in order to accomplish this you have to believe in absurdities, that's not fine.

Do you know the difference between a TBM (literal believer), and someone who thinks historicity is irrelevant? Sometimes called "liberals", or "Liahonas"?

A TBM belief, for me, is absurd because I don't believe the Book of Mormon is history. Wouldn't you agree it is absurd to believe in something that never happened?

[_Ray A]

Another point I'll make before I sign off, as I have lots of work ahead of me between now and Monday morning.

That's why I've also said that the CoC have taken a wiser approach, and don't demand that it be accepted as history. And what have even the GAs emphasised all along? Things like "where Zarahelma is isn't important, the message of the Book is important". I know they believe it's history, but they do not emphasise the "historical message" as having very much importance in comprison to the "spiritual message".

They will learn. And in due time they will follow the CoC. Maybe next century.

[_Dr. Shades]

David Whitmer? How do you deduce this?

Didn't he have some problems with the King Follett discourse? Did tradition play a part? His rational sense?

William Law had problems with the King Follett discourse (and polygamy), not David Whitmer. David Whitmer was expelled during the Missouri period; he was never in Nauvoo wherein the King Follet discourse was given.

(David Whitmer's problem was with A) revelations that came from a source other than the seerstone, B) printing the revelations in the first place, and C) changing the revelations once printed.)

[_Lamanite]

William Law had problems with the King Follett discourse (and polygamy), not David Whitmer. David Whitmer was expelled during the Missouri period; he was never in Nauvoo wherein the King Follet discourse was given.

(David Whitmer's problem was with A) revelations that came from a source other than the seerstone, B) printing the revelations in the first place, and C) changing the revelations once printed.)

Your first paragraph is spot on. But I'm wondering if you could provide references for the A, B, and C, assertions in the second paragraph?


Big UP!

Lamanite

[_wenglund]

While I tend to share Elder Packer's sentiment, my mind is open to other explanations for the origin of man--and this because I don't see this issue as all that pertinent to spiritual progression. Much good has and can be accomplished in the world absent a definitive determination one way or the other. So, why should I care?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you paying attention to what you are saying? Packer said, with emphasis added,

Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles.

What Packer actually said was exceptionally judgmental towards other human beings and was extraordinarily self-certain. His statement logically implies that if you believe in evolution, then it is impossible to have reverence for God. He is adamant and certain about this.

Do you really mean to say that you “tend” to share this sentiment? Do you really mean to say that sharing in this obstinate judgmental attitude towards other human beings (i.e. evolutionists) isn’t pertinent to your spiritual progression?

Let’s reword this into a different example. Say somebody said this: Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that Joseph Smith really possessed a set of gold plates. If somebody adamantly attacked the spirituality of Mormons with to the same degree that Packer attacks the spirituality of evolutionists, do you really think somebody could share this bigoted sentiment with a shrug of their shoulders because it doesn’t pertain to their spiritual growth?

It really is not that complicated or sinister. When I said I TEND to share Elder Packers sentiment, I meant that I TEND not to believe that man evolved from slime. That's all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_mentalgymnast]

(David Whitmer's problem was with A) revelations that came from a source other than the seerstone, B) printing the revelations in the first place, and C) changing the revelations once printed.)

Yep, I stand corrected. My point still stands, however. David Whitmer was locked into his own traditions/rationale/mindset as to how revelation is received. When his rational mind was thrown for a loop, his testimony of the revelations was shattered like glass. His traditional views in regards to the modus operandi of revelation was the basis for his rejection of Joseph Smith's claims. Rationality and tradition were intimately intertwined as I mentioned previously.

My argument with Ray is that the same thing is observable today as one looks at the so called rationality of those that leave the church behind.

Narrative rationality makes more sense in my book. It provides for intuition, experience and wisdom as being integral components/parts in the reasoning process.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

William Law had problems with the King Follett discourse (and polygamy), not David Whitmer. David Whitmer was expelled during the Missouri period; he was never in Nauvoo wherein the King Follet discourse was given.

(David Whitmer's problem was with A) revelations that came from a source other than the seerstone, B) printing the revelations in the first place, and C) changing the revelations once printed.)

Your first paragraph is spot on. But I'm wondering if you could provide references for the A, B, and C, assertions in the second paragraph?


Big UP!

Lamanite

Whitmer had problems with the changes to the Book of Commandments.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

(David Whitmer's problem was with A) revelations that came from a source other than the seerstone, B) printing the revelations in the first place, and C) changing the revelations once printed.)

Dr. Shades, I think it is possible that Whitmer may have had problems with the developmental views of God as Mormonism moved along.

We find this:

"And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."
Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris. (Book of Mormon, 1924 edition)

The question could be asked whether Whitmer may have had a difficult time with moving from trinitarianism to the later Mormon views (King Follett) concerning God.

But I concede, it's rather "iffy" one way or the other though to solidly come down on one side as to whether or not trinitarian concerns played any real part in Whitmer's leaving the church.

Regards,
MG