I responded to exactly what I thought it was worth responding to: a claim by a guy whose presuppositions are a self-built box that he willingly locks himself into that others are unwilling to "think out of the box." Your continuous attempts to create excuses for the church and its leadership are not "thinking out of the box." They are desperate attempts to keep the thinking inside of your box.
Exactly.
I think it's fair to say that, in general terms, each of us responds to a combination of:
what we think is worth debating
what we think we can usefully say something about
what we find interesting
whether or not that is what the poster/commenter wants to discuss.
Other times the discussion becomes a meta-debate, talking about the framing, or validity etc. of the discussion, because one person believes that this is where the action is. I think that this entire comment is an example of a meta-discussion.
From time to time it may be worthwhile to try to ensure that a point we feel is significant is not missed, but continued attempts to "push" the point are unlikely to produce results.
I could refer back to comments I've made, or questions I've asked, for which no response was forthcoming, but would that be productive? Probably not. I'll just continue to stew about them until my last breath. Or perhaps beyond, if life after death turns out to be a reality.
Quoting only part of a post is objectionable if it changes the meaning of what the person being quoted said. Otherwise, people get to talk about what they want to talk about.
Nothing in the rest of MG2.0's post changes the meaning of "critics need to think outside of the box." It's one of those general criticisms of critics that MG2.0 just throws into a post from time to time.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
I responded to exactly what I thought it was worth responding to: a claim by a guy whose presuppositions are a self-built box that he willingly locks himself into that others are unwilling to "think out of the box." Your continuous attempts to create excuses for the church and its leadership are not "thinking out of the box." They are desperate attempts to keep the thinking inside of your box.
Exactly.
I think it's fair to say that, in general terms, each of us responds to a combination of:
what we think is worth debating
what we think we can usefully say something about
what we find interesting
whether or not that is what the poster/commenter wants to discuss.
Other times the discussion becomes a meta-debate, talking about the framing, or validity etc. of the discussion, because one person believes that this is where the action is. I think that this entire comment is an example of a meta-discussion.
From time to time it may be worthwhile to try to ensure that a point we feel is significant is not missed, but continued attempts to "push" the point are unlikely to produce results.
I could refer back to comments I've made, or questions I've asked, for which no response was forthcoming, but would that be productive? Probably not. I'll just continue to stew about them until my last breath. Or perhaps beyond, if life after death turns out to be a reality.
Bite your tongue, malkie!! (which is what is said around me when a jinx might be forthcoming--such as an afterlife coming into existence simply to cause eternal stewing. )
People see your questions and empathize with the irritation of non-answers. We don't wish stewing on you, to your last breath or to an imaginary beyond.
Res Ipsa, I would have hoped for a little more engagement on what I said. Both you and malkie ignored the thrust of what I actually said. Truth be told? There have been MANY times when I've presented ideas/concepts that would require thinking outside of the box and I've seen those concepts/ideas be more or less brushed aside...a nothing to see here...kind of response.
The thing is, it is coming up with alternatives other than what you're saying, " The larger picture is clear: from Joseph Smith through the present day, the “restoration” is indistinguishable from people making stuff up as the go along", is what I find interesting and yes, challenging. But in a good way.
Critics, in many cases, have either given up on doing so or never attempted to think outside of the box in regard to faith matters. They simply reject it as 'non sensical' and keep repeating that from their soap box.
Not that you're doing that.
Regards,
MG
I responded to exactly what I thought it was worth responding to: a claim by a guy whose presuppositions are a self-built box that he willingly locks himself into that others are unwilling to "think out of the box." Your continuous attempts to create excuses for the church and its leadership are not "thinking out of the box." They are desperate attempts to keep the thinking inside of your box.
The word "excuses" and "desperate" are misaligned with the religious/faith journey that I have personally traveled.
That you would use these two words I find curious.
What I've presented here (earlier) and at other times in the past are exercises in thinking outside the constraints of absolute and dogmatic disbelief and/or doubt. THAT is the definition of thinking outside the box.
It takes time, patience, and effort. Faith isn't always an easy road although some might like it to be.
The non responses I've received over time to some of my thought exercises and alternate ways of viewing the internals of the issues have only reinforced my belief that die hard critics are either unwilling or unable to step back from the larger picture and look at how the details and/or brush strokes might lead to a greater whole that is beautiful in its composition.
Complex, but beautiful.
"Excuses" and "desperate" essentially are cheap shots which actually misrepresentation the thought and time that believers put into matters of faith.
No—that’s not what I’m saying at all, and your response doesn’t contain evidence. No one is demanding a standardized message across all cultures. I’m saying that if a later doctrine is claimed to be an ancient, universal “restoration,” then the earlier text that is presented as preserving that ancient gospel shouldn’t contradict it. The Book of Mormon presents Christ’s doctrine as fixed, complete, and specifically excludes later additions.
Joseph said the fullness of the ancient gospel was restored. If that’s true, then the Book of Mormon should contain those things that needed to be “restored.” Instead it gives a closed, complete doctrine and warns that adding more or less comes “of evil.”
Chapter and verse?
I'm still hearing you say that the gospel as taught in the Book of Mormon ought to run exactly parallel with no variance to the gospel as we have it today. My argument is "Why would we expect that?" (fleshed out a bit earlier in thread).
Regards,
MG
I’m not saying it, the Jesus of the Book of Mormon said it:
3 Nephi 11 40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
I responded to exactly what I thought it was worth responding to: a claim by a guy whose presuppositions are a self-built box that he willingly locks himself into that others are unwilling to "think out of the box." Your continuous attempts to create excuses for the church and its leadership are not "thinking out of the box." They are desperate attempts to keep the thinking inside of your box.
The word "excuses" and "desperate" are misaligned with the religious/faith journey that I have personally traveled.
That you would use these two words I find curious.
What I've presented here (earlier) and at other times in the past are exercises in thinking outside the constraints of absolute and dogmatic disbelief and/or doubt. THAT is the definition of thinking outside the box.
It takes time, patience, and effort. Faith isn't always an easy road although some might like it to be.
The non responses I've received over time to some of my thought exercises and alternate ways of viewing the internals of the issues have only reinforced my belief that die hard critics are either unwilling or unable to step back from the larger picture and look at how the details and/or brush strokes might lead to a greater whole that is beautiful in its composition.
Complex, but beautiful.
"Excuses" and "desperate" essentially are cheap shots which actually misrepresentation the thought and time that believers put into matters of faith.
Regards
MG
LOL. Do you see how explicitly contradictory your posts are. First, you scold critics for not thinking out of the box and not looking at the big picture. Then, with no sign of self awareness, you turn right around and scold critics for focusing on the big picture and not focusing on the “brush strokes.” This illustrates the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of your “mental gymnastics.”
You’ve completely inverted the concept of thinking out of the box. To think outside the box requires thinking out of your own box. Otherwise, you’re just arguing like everyone else does. You always stay squarely and stubbornly inside your own box. Indeed, one could fault conclude that your use of “absolute” and “dogmatic” are projections.
And I’m going to call you out for maliciously misrepresenting what I said. I never criticized “believers.” I never criticized “faith journeys.” I criticized your reflexive creation of rationalizations out of thin air for every act of leadership. That’s extreme in the box thinking.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
The word "excuses" and "desperate" are misaligned with the religious/faith journey that I have personally traveled.
That you would use these two words I find curious.
What I've presented here (earlier) and at other times in the past are exercises in thinking outside the constraints of absolute and dogmatic disbelief and/or doubt. THAT is the definition of thinking outside the box.
It takes time, patience, and effort. Faith isn't always an easy road although some might like it to be.
The non responses I've received over time to some of my thought exercises and alternate ways of viewing the internals of the issues have only reinforced my belief that die hard critics are either unwilling or unable to step back from the larger picture and look at how the details and/or brush strokes might lead to a greater whole that is beautiful in its composition.
Complex, but beautiful.
"Excuses" and "desperate" essentially are cheap shots which actually misrepresentation the thought and time that believers put into matters of faith.
Regards
MG
LOL. Do you see how explicitly contradictory your posts are. First, you scold critics for not thinking out of the box and not looking at the big picture. Then, with no sign of self awareness, you turn right around and scold critics for focusing on the big picture and not focusing on the “brush strokes.”
You have misconstrued what I've said. This leads to a response built upon a faulty/sandy foundation. It goes downhill from there.
I'm still hearing you say that the gospel as taught in the Book of Mormon ought to run exactly parallel with no variance to the gospel as we have it today. My argument is "Why would we expect that?" (fleshed out a bit earlier in thread).
Regards,
MG
I’m not saying it, the Jesus of the Book of Mormon said it:
3 Nephi 11 40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
Are you saying that the age/day of miracles and revelation has ceased? That God no longer works in the world by giving further light and knowledge?
The Book of Revelation and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament say something similar. Do we discount the New Testament?
To interpret this scripture and others like it as saying that the heavens are closed to revelation and further guidance /knowledge from the Creator sounds kind of harsh.
Wouldn't a loving parent continue to instruct His children?
I’m not saying it, the Jesus of the Book of Mormon said it:
3 Nephi 11 40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
Are you saying that the age/day of miracles and revelation has ceased? That God no longer works in the world by giving further light and knowledge?
The Book of Revelation and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament say something similar. Do we discount the New Testament?
To interpret this scripture and others like it as saying that the heavens are closed to revelation and further guidance /knowledge from the Creator sounds kind of harsh.
Wouldn't a loving parent continue to instruct His children?
Are you saying that the age/day of miracles and revelation has ceased? That God no longer works in the world by giving further light and knowledge?
The Book of Revelation and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament say something similar. Do we discount the New Testament?
To interpret this scripture and others like it as saying that the heavens are closed to revelation and further guidance /knowledge from the Creator sounds kind of harsh.
Wouldn't a loving parent continue to instruct His children?
What kind of God do you believe in?
Regards,
MG
It’s your book, MG.
And unlike you I believe that the story of the Book of Mormon told by Joseph Smith and other witnesses is true.
As such, I can accept further light and knowledge beyond that which was given to the ancients. For the reasons I've already gone into some detail on either in this thread or another just recently.
Yes, the Book of Mormon...in a sense...is my book. I've had it in my home along with the Bible all my life. I continue to study and read it. I believe it to be the word of God.
It is one of the cornerstones in my beliefs concerning the existence of God and in Jesus Christ as the Savior of mankind.
I'm still curious as to your response to the questions I asked you in my previous post.
And unlike you I believe that the story of the Book of Mormon told by Joseph Smith and other witnesses is true.
As such, I can accept further light and knowledge beyond that which was given to the ancients. For the reasons I've already gone into some detail on either in this thread or another just recently.
Yes, the Book of Mormon...in a sense...is my book. I've had it in my home along with the Bible all my life. I continue to study and read it. I believe it to be the word of God.
It is one of the cornerstones in my beliefs concerning the existence of God and in Jesus Christ as the Savior of mankind.
I'm still curious as to your response to the questions I asked you in my previous post.
Regards,
MG
You’re making this about belief, but my point isn’t about whether the Book of Mormon is “true” or not (you’ll recall that I do think it is “true”), it’s about what the text actually says. No one is stopping you from accepting what you’re calling “further light,” but the Book of Mormon defines Christ’s doctrine as complete and directly warns against adding “more or less.”
So the issue is simple: If the Book of Mormon preserves the ancient, original doctrine of Christ, why does the does the system add to that doctrine inside the book in spite of being told that anything being added to the doctrine is evil?
)
