Leaderboard

Heh, there are a lot here, on the board, who would say what you conceptually paint as the advantage of philosophy is it's disadvantage and what you conceptually paint as the disadvantage of revelation is indeed it's advantage. That is, that philosophy's mutability by anyone who can put together a cogent argument is why it is unreliable, and that the lack of the same, the inability for revelation to be changed by anyone putting together a cogent argument is indeed it's strength. I'm not arguing either way, but it is interesting as it highlights that there is a big difference in premise at play.

There is a lot in this post to digest. Initially, however, it occurs to me that, if we regard revelation as a conversation between God and us, inevitably that conversation will take into account where we happen to be right now, intellectually, morally, emotionally, etc. This may account for the fact that revelations have differed, some widely, some so considerably from others that they are mutually exclusive. My own personal revelation confirmed to me the fundamentals I outlined above, and nothing more. This is important if you want a glimpse of my trajectory, which tends to be as distrustful of subjectives I have no access to as spamlds is of philosophy. Accordingly, my project is to build, from those fundamentals, from those philosophical findings I find to be wise, and which stand peer criticism, and from my reasoning, a workable Christian faith. I am reluctant to seek further revelations; the first having had quite enough impact, thank you, rendering me hospitalised with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. So, it is to the more gentle science of thinking about thinking that I turn, with eclectic abandon. I do not care overmuch for the provenance of wisdom, only that it represents a quality of thought to which I can aspire. I do not know if this approach is a humble one (I will accept input from any one, from any time or any where) or an arrogant one (I reserve the right to assess it's standard according to whatever criteria seem to me appropriate), and I don't much care. It just seems to me to be the right way to proceed, at this particular point in my life. All that's a bit personal, and you all probably don't deserve to be burdened with it. Nevertheless, I will add just one further personal comment. I don't really care what degree of heaven I might inherit, or even if I will get there at all. I am entirely content to leave that to God's good and loving judgement. What I do care about is closing in on the truth, and that is quite enough to keep me occupied for a good time to come. Best wishes, 2RM.

(I've been reduced to laughing at my own joke.)

Former pre-Vatican II Catholic here. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to make the Sign of the Cross or how many times I've wished for a kneeler in the Celestial Room so I could kneel in contemplation of both the issues I've brought to the temple and my experience in the temple. I'm finding a fair amount of LDS intellectual thought. Right now (yes, still) I'm reading Hardy's 'Understanding the Book of Mormon.' Not for those who don't like to think. I've also enjoyed 'Joseph Smith, Jr.: Reappraisals after Two Centuries.' I'll admit looking at some Catholic stuff every now and then. The woman who founded the nuns who taught me in prep school was canonized a few years ago. That's fantastic to me, so I look at her stuff (and the order) on occasion. I still have a warm place in my heart for the Virgin Mary, in terms of the whole mother thing. I will play old hymns on YouTube, but I play MoTab as well. Catholicism was a huge part of my life for a long time. It gave me a wonderful education. It made me not be afraid of hard work (actually, to almost seek it out). That said, thankfully, I was not able to con my parents into letting me go into the convent in high school. : ) I think it's OK if you miss some of your Catholic rituals and behaviors (oh, those plain LDS chapels!). It was a big part of who you were before you converted. Plus, I don't see what's wrong with reading what the popes have written, same thing as reading works by the Dalai Lama or Thích Nhất Hạnh; we can learn from many worthy people.

I want to piggyback off these excellent points. Philosophy and science were used many times throughout history as an attempt to understand the ways of God (Taylor, 1989). The problem was that these attempts always led to an ontic logos (Taylor) that was far and wide from the straight and narrow preached by the Savior. Especially because so many of these philosophies and sciences were based primarily off of Grecoroman and Cartesian philosophies that promote an onotological individualism (Taylor; Bellah, et. al, 1995). In other words, these philosciences led to a self-serving form of religion and morality that paved the way for later destructive philosophies such as moral nihilism. The water just keeps getting muddier. As it does, this is when people like myself, 2RM, and others feel the tendency to evaluate our ways, our thinking, our ontic logos. But, as I have had to learn in my own intellectual pursuits, this cannot be done without revelation from God. I don't mean that we aren't capable of obtaining truth (empirical or otherwise) without God. What I mean is that we cannot learn the truth we need to get back to the presence of our Father without His revelation guiding us. Many post-Cartesians and positivists worry that an arbitrary morality is being set. And, in deed it is to an extent. The only arbitrary truth set forth by God is the bare minimum (and perhaps then some) absolutely necessary to return to Him. The rest is up to us. Which is where moral philosophy (yes, this is a legitimate discipline, see Charles Taylor: A Secular Age, The Source of the Self; and John Macmurray: Persons in Relation for a starting point) can be of great value to us. But, it must be done with the background understanding (Taylor, 1995; Wittgenstein, 1953) of the gospel, and our relationships with others (Slife, 2004; Macmurray, 1991). Otherwise, we risk analyzing these truths, values, morals, and virtues in a vacuum--as post-Cartesian dualism would have us do. This is one of the many intellectual pitfalls that can take us away from the gospel, just as Paul said to ths Colossians. But, submitting to God will take a degree of humility on our part. It will take us being honest with ourselves and asking, "Which law do I want to live? God's or man's?" The answer (law) we choose will determine the degree of glory we attain hereafter (as we are discussing on another thread at this time). In the words of William James, "Whatever decision we make, we make at our own peril" (The Will To Believe). Edit: The year of the Wittgenstein reference has been added.

Yes, it's interesting to ponder which God will judge more kindly; the one who fails to realise his intellectual potential because he distrusts philosophy and doesn't want scripture challenged, or the one who uses his intellectual capacity to it's fullest extent, but nevertheless goes astray on matters of dogma and doctrine. I think your warning about sophistry, and your commendation of the fundamentals of the faith, is entirely fair comment. I take note of it. However, it seems to me that not all of philosophy is sophistry, and not all of the religion is the fundamentals. Can we arrive at a compromise? I will try not to lead anyone astray with sophistry, and you let me ask questions that respect the fundamentals of any Christian faith; that God exists, is good, and loves us, and that Jesus was born, lived, taught, was crucified and died, was resurrected, and now sits heavenward, at the right hand of Majesty on high. Do we have a deal? Best wishes, 2RM.

Like I said, I wasn't making any comment toward any particular individual in this discussion so far. My insinuation is that when Plato's name emerges in a discussion of Christian theology, it's a warning flag. Greek philosophy was a corrupting influence in both Judaism and early Christianity. Paul warned in Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." There is a danger that concerned Paul that people would intellectualize the simple gospel truths and engage in philosophical debates "after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." All the early Christian controversies, like Arianism, had roots in Neoplatonism. One of the things I admire about the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young is the complete lack of this kind of attempt to intellectualize our religion. I'm not anti-intellectual, but footnotes don't convert anyone. We send out uneducated missionaries who are witnesses of direct personal intervention in their lives by the Holy Ghost. We sent out untrained farmers, laborers, merchants, and others to preach the gospel at the beginning of this dispensation. I love what it says in D&C Section 1: 19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh— 20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; 21 That faith also might increase in the earth; 22 That mine everlasting covenant might be established; 23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. Like Paul, our lot is to be "fools for Christ's sake" when it comes to the sophistries of the world (1 Corinthians 4:10). There are some questions we need to be focused on, especially when we deal with nonmembers. Does God live? Is Jesus the Son of God? Did Jesus establish a Church? Did the members of the Godhead restore that Church through revelation to Joseph Smith? Have we received gospel ordinances from a person having authority? Have we received a remission of our sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost since we believed? If the answers to those things are all affirmative, the Holy Ghost will do the rest of the teaching as we do our duty. Plato's not going to do us any good if the answers to any of those questions is "No."

The last one was a good attempt but it ought to have been a X not a S

The only beings that need to be "given" agency are those who do not have the power to take it upon themselves. God is all powerful. He is the ultimate agent unto himself. We are given agency because we are not all powerful, and so the ability to be agents unto ourselves is given by one who is all powerful. Of course God has agency. He is his own agent. He represents Himself and no other. As for Sem Snoozer's idea, there is a distinct possibility that we, at some point, did not have agency. Agency requires knowledge and accountability. We may have not always had both of those things.

The ways my wife and I are missionaries .....We have a Family Mission Plan. It's a basic and simple plan. We have read Preach My Gospel. We try to fellowship less actives and part member families. Try to be their friend. When we don't see members at church that should be there we will call them or send them a card and let them know we miss them. When someone attends that hasn't been there in awhile we send them a card and let them know how awesome it was to see them at church. We do have a goal of how many Books of Mormon we want to give away. We have some other things on there as well. We will leave pass along cards with our tip when we go out to dinner.

Just a reminder that this particular forum is for introductions. Let's try and keep it to that. If you have further questions or issues to discuss we have other forums for those. Thanks.