Postmodernism Rears Its Ugly Head Again

[_mfbukowski]

Ask Ben

I am tired of being his proxy. I agree in general terms with him- I am on record as agreeing with him. But for the specifics of what he was saying- ask him

[_Darth J]

Ask Ben

I am tired of being his proxy. I agree in general terms with him- I am on record as agreeing with him. But for the specifics of what he was saying- ask him

No, I'm not asking Ben. I'm asking you. You keep denying that your faith is in LDS apologetics, not the LDS Church. Well, you couldn't prove that by anything you have posted.

[_mfbukowski]

then why does the Correlation Committee exist?

Maybe to correlate things? You know, so they are not contradictory?

After all if you don't have clear doctrine, that could be a problem.

[_Darth J]

then why does the Correlation Committee exist?

Maybe to correlate things? You know, so they are not contradictory?

After all if you don't have clear doctrine, that could be a problem.

Why do you need clear doctrine in a church that allegedly has no creed or defined tenets of faith?

[_Aristotle Smith]

mfb,

You clearly hold that you don't really need to believe much of anything to be a Mormon. So I take it you hold all kinds of beliefs. Please answer the following questions for me, as I'd really like to know.

1) Where is the appropriate place, in an official church setting, to share all these different beliefs? and related to that: Where have you personally, in an official church setting, shared these different beliefs?

2) When is the appropriate time, in an official church setting, to share all these different beliefs? and related to that: When have you personally, in an official church setting, shared these different beliefs?

3) How should on go about, in an official church setting, sharing all these different beliefs? and related to that: How have you personally, in an official church setting, shared these different beliefs?

My guess is that the answer to all of these questions are respectively: nowhere, nowhere, never, never, you can't and I haven't.

Now I have no doubt that you can have all kinds of crazy beliefs and if you keep them to yourself the church doesn't care. But then I have to ask how could it care? You could hold all kinds of crazy beliefs in Nazi Germany, Baathist Iraq, and Soviet Russia and if you kept them to yourself nobody cared. But then again, how could they care?

[_mfbukowski]

mfb,

You clearly hold that you don't really need to believe much of anything to be a Mormon. So I take it you hold all kinds of beliefs. Please answer the following questions for me, as I'd really like to know.

1) Where is the appropriate place, in an official church setting, to share all these different beliefs? and related to that: Where have you personally, in an official church setting, shared these different beliefs?

2) When is the appropriate time, in an official church setting, to share all these different beliefs? and related to that: When have you personally, in an official church setting, shared these different beliefs?

3) How should on go about, in an official church setting, sharing all these different beliefs? and related to that: How have you personally, in an official church setting, shared these different beliefs?

My guess is that the answer to all of these questions are respectively: nowhere, nowhere, never, never, you can't and I haven't.

Now I have no doubt that you can have all kinds of crazy beliefs and if you keep them to yourself the church doesn't care. But then I have to ask how could it care? You could hold all kinds of crazy beliefs in Nazi Germany, Baathist Iraq, and Soviet Russia and if you kept them to yourself nobody cared. But then again, how could they care?

That is a total distortion of everything I have said. My "beliefs" are totally orthodox; I am a TBM.

Teaching philosophy is not appropriate in a church setting.

Please read some of the other discussions I have had with Runtu to understand where I am coming from.

I will briefly summarize one example. I am a Pragmatist- a follower of William James and John Dewey, and a major fan of Wittgenstein. Since you allegedly understand philosophy you will understand what that means.

There is nothing beyond human experience- if we cannot experience it, we cannot speak of it or know anything about it (How's that for a meta-narrative?)

I completely "believe" that there was "no death before the fall". There could not in fact logically be "death" before the first human because there was no human context in which to define what "death" was. There was no consciousness of the meaning of "death"

That is one example of my "belief" and how I understand it.

I believe that Adam and Eve could have been individual humans, or they could be archetypal models. No one knows for sure, and it really doesn't matter- what matters is how I use my beliefs about Adam - about mankind and/or the person and apply these beliefs in my life.

But do I believe that Adam was the "first man"? Yes of course. That could be true by definition- that we define the first of our species as the title "Adam"- the giver of names, the inventor of the human context and language. Was he an individual human, or an archetype?

No one knows and it doesn't matter. What matters is how I incorporate the lessons Adam has taught us in my life- regardless of who he was.

So yes I believe that Adam was the first man, and that there was no death before his fall. That is a totally TBM "belief".

Would I teach that in a lesson in church? Of course not, because there are many legitimate ways for many different people to re-construct those truths in their own lives according to their own revelations of what it all means.

One should not interfere with the existing light one has in their lives since each human lives and creates his own context and understanding.

But honestly I don't believe anyone here will understand that or even read it frankly.

[_Aristotle Smith]

mfb,

Thanks for your honesty. Like all internet Mormons you love to wax rhapsodic about the "diversity" of the LDS church, but when you arrive at the chapel, you become a chapel Mormon and read from the same script as everyone else.

Quite frankly, no one gives two craps about that kind of "diversity."

[_mfbukowski]

mfb,

Thanks for your honesty. Like all internet Mormons you love to wax rhapsodic about the "diversity" of the LDS church, but when you arrive at the chapel, you become a chapel Mormon and read from the same script as everyone else.

Quite frankly, no one gives two s***s about that kind of "diversity."

I suppose I instantly transform, ducking into a phone booth just before getting to church, right?

One could see it that way, if you like to create dichotomies for no apparent reason. (Internet vs Chapel Mormons) I have been against false dualism all my life however and am not about to capitulate to it now.

I prefer to see it as one group of Mormons with a high degree of diversity in creating their own contexts for belief as those beliefs are revealed to them, unified by the manuals taught at church.

And THAT is why there is a correlation committee.

[_TAO]

mfb,

Thanks for your honesty. Like all internet Mormons you love to wax rhapsodic about the "diversity" of the LDS church, but when you arrive at the chapel, you become a chapel Mormon and read from the same script as everyone else.

Quite frankly, no one gives two s***s about that kind of "diversity."

mfb was very correct on his point actually. We are diverse in our personal interpretations of things that aren't related to core beliefs. Like he said, it's up to each individual person to seek his own light on the subject, and to see what God says for him/herself.

[_MrStakhanovite]

mfb was very correct on his point actually. We are diverse in our personal interpretations of things that aren't related to core beliefs. Like he said, it's up to each individual person to seek his own light on the subject, and to see what God says for him/herself.

I don't think so.