A Covenant People

[Limnor]

I think it’s something like this: The institution isn’t the awakening itself, but it creates the environment where awakening can occur, and covenants are what support transformation.

That's the long and short of it.

Regards,
MG

Ok great—but I’m genuinely interested in your thoughts about the last bits. I didn’t ask to score rhetorical points, I actually want to understand: how do you tell revelation from a closed circuit? From the outside, the structure looks like it was purpose-built to protect a lie.

And, if I’m being blunt—how do you tell truth from lie? That’s the “dark side.”

[MG 2.0]

That's the long and short of it.

Regards,
MG

Ok great—but I’m genuinely interested in your thoughts about the last bits. I didn’t ask to score rhetorical points, I actually want to understand: how do you tell revelation from a closed circuit? From the outside, the structure looks like it was purpose-built to protect a lie.

And, if I’m being blunt—how do you tell truth from lie? That’s the “dark side.”

I know you don't particularly like my use of words like "scaffolding" and "patterns". They are necessary, however, to lay out the whole thesis of what I am trying to get across. Yes, from the outside the structure CAN look like a fortress built to defend/support a myth. Layers of ritual, hierarchy, and covenants might look like a wall to protect the 'inner workings' of the institution which you apparently see as untrustworthy or the 'dark side' and/or actual reason for the implementation of the organization that critics despise.

The thing is, from the inside it's a whole different view. These same elements are the scaffolding for individual transformation and relationship with God. The patterns of discipleship.

I realize that what you're saying...apparently...is that the structure might end up being abused to mislead and/or teach incorrect principles as they relate to the processes involved in following deity and worshipping in a manner that is 'correct' in your estimation. I suppose that I cannot convince you of anything other than what your assumptions and preconditions are for LDS 'truth claims' actually being True.

It is what it is, right?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

institution which you apparently see as untrustworthy or the 'dark side' and/or actual reason for the implementation of the organization that critics despise.

-snip-

The thing is, from the inside it's a whole different view. These same elements are the scaffolding for individual transformation and relationship with God.

-snip-

is that the structure might end up being abused to mislead and/or teach incorrect principles as they related to the processes involved in following deity and worshipping in a manner that is 'correct' in your estimation. I suppose that I cannot convince you of anything other than what your assumptions and preconditions are for LDS 'truth claims' actually being True.

I think people sharpen each other through challenging each others’ views, and I get that the view from inside feels different. That’s probably true of every institution. I have a healthy distrust of institutions and care a lot about people, and this discussion forum is specifically designed to talk about one of those institutions, it just happens to be the one you are in.

Please recall I am an “investigator,” and part of my investigation has to do with not only the book but the institution, and the underpinnings, that sprang from it. I’m not trying to win a battle of personal views of God, and whether my view is more accurate than yours. We could explore those things, but this discussion isn’t about theological differences, it’s about truth and how to discern it.

Let’s explore something. From your point of view, you are not arguing toward truth, you’re arguing from it, and I can understand and appreciate that. So when I ask how you know “truth,” you probably hear it as why don’t you trust the revelation I’ve already confirmed?

That indicates that, to you, “truth” isn’t something discovered, it’s already been revealed by one man and interpreted through the LDS institution, and by extension, you. Everything flows from that fixed starting point.

My question has less to do with whether the structure transforms people, and more to do with how you know that foundation is based on truth. How do you know Joseph told the truth?

That’s still the part I don’t see answered but it’s ok if you don’t want to explore that.

[MG 2.0]

institution which you apparently see as untrustworthy or the 'dark side' and/or actual reason for the implementation of the organization that critics despise.

-snip-

The thing is, from the inside it's a whole different view. These same elements are the scaffolding for individual transformation and relationship with God.

-snip-

is that the structure might end up being abused to mislead and/or teach incorrect principles as they related to the processes involved in following deity and worshipping in a manner that is 'correct' in your estimation. I suppose that I cannot convince you of anything other than what your assumptions and preconditions are for LDS 'truth claims' actually being True.

I think people sharpen each other through challenging each others’ views, and I get that the view from inside feels different. That’s probably true of every institution. I have a healthy distrust of institutions and care a lot about people, and this discussion forum is specifically designed to talk about one of those institutions, it just happens to be the one you are in.

Fair enough.

Please recall I am an “investigator,” and part of my investigation has to do with not only the book but the institution, and the underpinnings, that sprang from it. I’m not trying to win a battle of personal views of God, and whether my view is more accurate than yours. We could explore those things, but this discussion isn’t about theological differences, it’s about truth and how to discern it.

I suppose we're all looking at different things during a discussion and may wander around a bit. But OK.

Let’s explore something. From your point of view, you are not arguing toward truth, you’re arguing from it...

I'll have to stop you right there. I don't think that's a fair assessment. If I'm looking at the world from a macro point of view and how all might fit into the world I live in, then I think I am taking the bird's eye view rather than a lab rat. Trying to look at the bigger picture rather than bits and bytes. Before you came onto the board I talked quite a bit about this comparing Monet and his painting style to how we might view the world and Mormonism in particular.

This will color everything including the way I approach metaphysical truth.

...and I can understand and appreciate that. So when I ask how you know “truth,” you probably hear it as why don’t you trust the revelation I’ve already confirmed?

No, I don't expect you to trust anything that I have to say.

That indicates that, to you, “truth” isn’t something discovered...

I think the science of Theology in many respects is something that comes line by line and precept upon precept. Kind of like any scientific endeavor. I do think it possible that there are some 'given' truths in religion just as there seem to be in nature and other scientific explorations.

But I think God is in the details.

...it’s already been revealed by one man...

Some of the 'given' truths I think do need to be handed over to mankind through revelation from God. He's too BIG to try and figure out on our own, in my opinion. Though you can't fault people for trying!

...and interpreted through the LDS institution...

I would say that the "LDS institution" may have certain knowledge and actionable 'permissions' from God to do this and that. To teach this and that. But that doesn't take away from what God is doing throughout the world in other religious institutions and theological/metaphysical frameworks. Joseph Smith would agree.

...and by extension, you. Everything flows from that fixed starting point.

There are certain things I will express allegiance/devotion to. But again, that's not to say that you and/or anyone else can/will do the same thing. If you read my posts, you will see that in many ways I might be called a universalist with an LDS bent/framework for access to certain things. But I'm always open to something that might 'out compete' what I've come to know and/or understand.

My question has less to do with whether the structure transforms people...

Although, truth be told, that might be the most important thing that should/could be asked.

...and more to do with how you know that foundation is based on truth.

Fair enough.

How do you know Joseph told the truth?

I don’t know in the forensic sense...I wasn’t there. What I do have is a layered knowing coming from the historical, experiential, relational, and covenantal parts of my life and learning that lead me that direction. I’ve read the historical accounts, the contradictions, and most importantly the context. If you've been around here long enough you will have heard me say many times, "context matters". And more rather than less. Some folks don't like that. They like looking at Monet close up rather than stepping back.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

What I do have is a layered knowing coming from the historical, experiential, relational, and covenantal parts of my life and learning that lead me that direction.

…

They like looking at Monet close up rather than stepping back.

The way you describe it—your epistemology, “a layered knowing coming from the historical, experiential, relational, and covenantal parts”—is understandable to me. I can see how those pieces fit together; they overlap and reinforce one another until the picture feels complete.

But like your Monet reference, that picture only holds together as long as you don’t look too closely. So I’d ask: are you choosing to ignore the fact that the haystack isn’t real because you like the picture?

Keeping in mind that you like the picture, can your overlapping affirmation give way to the false reality of the haystack?

In related terms—if every layer points back to the same assumption, that Joseph was telling the truth—what would actually count as evidence to the contrary?

You’ve been around these parts a while; surely someone’s asked you that before. How did you answer then?

[Marcus]

...If you read my posts, you will see that in many ways I might be called a universalist with an LDS bent/framework for access to certain things. But I'm always open to something that might 'out compete' what I've come to know and/or understand...

That in no way describes how mentalgymnast posts or what he believes. In fact, he posts almost exclusively in the exact opposite manner, and has done so for several decades here. Every once in a while he tries to tell people he doesn't really believe, act, or write what he clearly believes, acts, and writes, usually trying to rehabilitate some part of his reputation here.

[MG 2.0]

What I do have is a layered knowing coming from the historical, experiential, relational, and covenantal parts of my life and learning that lead me that direction.

…

They like looking at Monet close up rather than stepping back.

The way you describe it—your epistemology, “a layered knowing coming from the historical, experiential, relational, and covenantal parts”—is understandable to me. I can see how those pieces fit together; they overlap and reinforce one another until the picture feels complete.

But like your Monet reference, that picture only holds together as long as you don’t look too closely. So I’d ask: are you choosing to ignore the fact that the haystack isn’t real because you like the picture?

Keeping in mind that you like the picture, can your overlapping affirmation give way to the false reality of the haystack?

In related terms—if every layer points back to the same assumption, that Joseph was telling the truth—what would actually count as evidence to the contrary?

You’ve been around these parts a while; surely someone’s asked you that before. How did you answer then?

I’ve stepped back far enough to see a kind of coherence in the whole, even if, up close, the brushstrokes are messy, and some of the paint is cracked. This is what I meant, I think on this thread, when I said that I am more of a macro person than micro even though, obviously, the brushstrokes matter. It's the way the colors blend together that create a picture that I can see as a project that has coherence and makes for a beautiful theology when taken as a whole. Are there some things that I see as problematic when observed at the micro level without the influence of the surrounding colors? Sure.

But I would expect that to be the case if we are lacking in understanding/information.

For me, it wouldn’t be a single contradiction or a messy historical detail, I’ve seen too many of those already. Shulem has brought up problems with the Book of Abraham, etc. I've expressed my thoughts on that. However, for me, it would be a collapse of the pattern. I haven't come across anything that would cause a reevaluation of the whole scaffolding. There are just too many fruits that I see from the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (and all that this entails) and the witness of the Book of Mormon of Christ and His love and dealings with the people of the Book of Mormon to look at it as one giant fraud. Which is exactly what it would have to be. That's actually asking TOO much.

No such thing as a pious fraud. On that point, I think we would agree.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I think I get it. You value the beauty of the picture—dark smudges and all—more than the truth of the scene.

[Limnor]

...If you read my posts, you will see that in many ways I might be called a universalist with an LDS bent/framework for access to certain things. But I'm always open to something that might 'out compete' what I've come to know and/or understand...

That in no way describes how mentalgymnast posts or what he believes. In fact, he posts almost exclusively in the exact opposite manner, and has done so for several decades here. Every once in a while he tries to tell people he doesn't really believe, act, or write what he clearly believes, acts, and writes, usually trying to rehabilitate some part of his reputation here.

When a person is open to prettier pictures, it becomes a matter of taste, not truth.

[MG 2.0]

I think I get it. You value the beauty of the picture—dark smudges and all—more than the truth of the scene.

Aargh. I guess I don't speak clearly...or at least make myself clear to some people.

Regards,
MG