mordorbund

Written on stone... by the finger of God.
 
 
 
 
 
 
I'll just ban myself for the rest of the week.

I think there are two kinds of doubt.
 
1. When we run across something that does not conform with our proven paradigm of reality.
 
2. When we run across something that does not conform to what we want to be reality.
 
Obviously one kind of doubt leads to better understanding of reality and the other leads to deliberate misunderstandings of reality.

Written on stone... by the finger of God.
 
 
 
 
 
 
I'll just ban myself for the rest of the week.

Was there emotion before the fall? Yes. But when society reaches a certain state of progression they do not deal with the sorrow and pain they once did. In such a state further growth is slow. They are effectively impeded in their progression. Thus a new and more difficult challenge must be offered. With this new challenge comes deeper pain but also a greater joy.
 
The garden is the zenith of progression for a society in its current state. In such a state a new challenge must be offered, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This new challenge and opportunity represents a step up in progression. When an individual partakes of this new more difficult challenge he inevitably falls. His work is then to overcome his current fallen condition. In so doing he is lifted up to a new state with deeper joys, greater love, and a more complete happiness.
 
Christ is the great prototype. Having descended below all is now the greatest of all. Having suffered greater contradictions than man can suffer he is filled with deeper joy and love.  

Leah, have you brought this to your Bishop's attention? Did he give his permission??
 
TheFolkProphet- it states on the online Stake/Ward directory that the names are NOT to be used for commercial, business or political use. 

My answer has 2 parts:1) No, is it not morally right, but that isn't so much the issue. The issues are how informed do they need to be? And, when should they be informed of everything? A secondary issue is that being informed is not always the moral precedent of the study whereas harm to the participants is. Take two studies for example. The first, the Stanley Milgram experiements in the 60's about authority. All participants were being told they were shocking an individual. What they didn't know was that the person supposedly being shocked, in fact, wasn't. He was just acting. Participants made their own choice to continue shocking them or not. Many refused to. But, all participants were shown after the study that the person was just acting. There was no real harm here to the participants. The second example is the Phillip Zambardo prison experiments. Half the participants played the role of prison guards while the other half played the role of prisoners. But, all of them had full consent (even though this has been wrongfully contested). Despite their full informed consent the experiment ended horribly with physical and psychological damage to both parties. The guards became physically abusive to the prisoners and the prisoners developed learned helplessness, stockholm syndrome, and severe depression. When you take these two studies, it wasn't the informed consent that was the problem, it was how the studies were conducted from the ground up.
2) What really concerns me are ethics of how research results are presented in the behavioral sciences. They are presented as evidenced-based, empirical studies. So the results are taken as scientific fact. But, this is a questionable assertion at best.
Take Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for example. This is currently the leading therapy in our field. It is also one of the worst ones. But, it is considered evidenced-based and empirically "proven" to be more effective than any other therapy. But, these waters are beyond muddied, which the researchers know that. The truth is, CBT is not empirical supported. All one has to do is look at the research methods, outcome measurements, and statistical analysis to see that.
So, even though those research participants of CBT studies are fully informed, I believe the real immoral precedent here is that counselors, clients, insurance companies and courts, and the general public are misled entirely about the "scientific" basis of CBT, causing them to pursue it, pay money for it, try to live by it, just to find out afterward that they didn't get the results they were led to believe.
Thank you for asking. Does this answer your question?

I'm not sure how this plays into my point. Maybe I'm not understanding you well. Aren't morality and God's judgment sort of one and the same? Moreover, you had brought up the non-binary nature of accountability. Accountability requires judgment (as you point out), so isn't it natural to move on to the next step (if that's what I did)?
 
Let's see...so what I'm trying to ask is... At what level do we lose accountability for our views? How far must we be manipulated to no longer be accountable?
 
Certainly, I agree, that in general accountability is not binary. Not in the least. But I do wonder, particularly in the extremes of moral decay in our society, if there may not be a level where people are not accountable for their messed up ideologies. 

It is because you have moved on to the next step which is judgment.  If someone is not accountable for what happened then there can be no judgment on that action toward that person.  However if a person is accountable then judgment can be made, based on the circumstances.  One can be accountable but judged very lightly.

Right...but I think when it comes to a lot of things it is not that simple. Take, for example, television and movies and the destructive effect they have had on morality over the past 40 years. Take all the folk who are raised in this society and can no longer comprehend morality. How can they? They don't understand it. They have never been taught anything but amorality. Are they accountable?
 
What, I suppose, it comes down to is a question of how strong is the Light of Christ. Can a child raised by gay parents watching gay tv shows with gay friends supported by gay parades and news outlets have a chance at ever understanding there may, actually, be a choice in the matter?
 
Is there, perhaps, a level of manipulation that is binary. It may not exist in a single instance, but as an overall societal paradigm, is is possible that accountability has been diminished because of this manipulation? It's an interesting question.

Why does accountability have to be binary?   Why "this person OR that person?"  If I click a button I am responsible for that choice.  If I try to manipulate them to do what I want I am responsible for that choice.  If I choose to manipulate some one into clicking a button both me and the button clicker are responsible for our actions.

Freedom may be taken away. Whether this is moral or not, I think, is relative. It is, in fact, the moral choice to deny freedom in some cases. Criminals, being the obvious example.
 
Agency, on the other hand, may not be taken away. No matter what we do to another we cannot take away their agency.
 
God denies freedoms. This is inherent in mortality. We are not completely free because we are imperfect, weak, and lacking in a great deal of intelligence. And this is even relative per the situation we are born into. Some are clearly born with more freedoms than others. God allows this. But everyone of us, kings or slaves, maintains agency.
 
It may or may not be moral to manipulate others moods. That is a separate question from agency. To manipulate another's mood does not remove their agency. It cannot. Agency may not be taken away from us by another. Therefore the search for morality or the lack thereof in such things must be rooted in something other than agency as the guiding principle.

Mimetic Theory, by Rene Girard, may shed some light on this. Desire is merely copied, mimicked. It's mimetic in that once a person sees something someone wants (say an iPhone or S5), now that person wants it too. Ontological Hermeneutics (not exactly the same as regular hermeneutics) describes what's referred to as a background and a foreground in our minds. Charles Taylor has written quite a bit about these. When thoughts, emotions, impressions, etc occur in the background, they are typically not articulated enough for us to respond to and think deeply, or authentically, about. This causes us to be acted upon by these inarticulate, background thoughts, emotions, etc. Once we do bring something out of the background, into the foreground, it is articulated and we are more apt to act, rather than be acted upon.
Mimetic theory purports that if our desire is merely mimicked, copied, it is because we do not bring that mimicked desire out of the background, and into the foreground for examination. This is what creates the "herd" mentality that causes us to forfeit, or under utilize our agency.
My overall point is that regardless of what manipulations marketing uses, they are only successful when people fail to bring their mimetic desires out of the background and into the foreground where they can (among other things) think honestly and openly about who they are, what they want, what they need, and how they are using their agency.

I know this is a forum (and someone else's thread to boot) and as such the discussion can meander and wander, but since this is about Catholic beliefs, let's leave the other thread out of this. I'd hate for this to get contentious when this sub-forum is specifically a place where people of other faiths should feel most welcome, safe, and comfortable.

I reconcile free-will issues like this:
 
"Just because I will tend to get sad when looking at sad stuff, just like 89% of everyone else, doesn't mean I don't have agency to choose."
 
Then I sit back and gather folks' opinions to the contrary, and I've yet to find any of them persuasive.

I feel like we've moved on without acknowledging one way or another about the Alma experiment.
 
Jungler, in light of James12's post showing that your OP was actually a caution of discarding a growing sapling rather than throwing out a bad seed, and that there are verses (that were initially passed over) that permit you to remove bad seeds from your life and philosopy; given that, do you acknowledge that Alma's methodology is internally consistent and viable on its own terms?
 
If not, I think we should continue to work towards a resolution here. If so, then with that acknowledgement we should recognize that this concern you keep raising about "another gospel" is not because Alma doesn't provide a proper "out" for false teachings, but that you feel this methodology does not line up with the biblical model.
 
Let's put away the old toys before we start playing with new ones.

Like I said, I've actually been involved in such manipulations. On the one hand, it's exciting to see that you can turn this dial and push that button and watch the masses respond. On the other hand, it's disconcerting because it reduces them to animals.
 
How do you think Free Will fits into this? Is that a principle only for individuals and not masses? Is this something God uses to get the overall results He wants in key moments of history?
 
 
Yup, kids do that sort of thing. Grownups who do this sort of thing are given some foul names.

We believe that Jesus alone is Jesus.  He, for example, experienced human life, whereas we do not believe the Father or Spirit have (note, I understand that LDS theology may differ on this point--at least for the Father). 
 
Perhaps Jesus baptism is a great scene for this discussion.  All three characters are God.  They are co-eternal and co-equal.  Yet, it is the Son who is baptized.  It is the Father who pronounces his pleasure and blessing.  It is the Spirit who descends upon Jesus.  Each person is distinct and is carrying out a different role in the scene.  Yet, they are the one God.
How can this be?  It's what we see in scripture.  How can a "oneness of purpose" from three beings be considered a single God?  You say that it is--that you believe this oneness of purpose is so strong that it is correct to call your faith monotheistic.  We both have our mysteries, or inexplicables.

We're very sensitive to the charge that even our Tri-une God is not really one.  I referenced earlier that Jews (and Muslims) reject the Trinity as a monotheistic construct.  Since our faith is rooted in Judaism the criticism hurts.  We know we believe in one God, that the three are one, yet, as you say, it's hard to explain.  Yet, no Christian I know of would ever entertain belief in an actual tri-theism.  So, we ignore the criticism, feeling relatively safe in our long history, our thoughtful theology, and our personal experience of worshipping one God--be that God Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
 
Along come the LDS, saying that the persons are actual beings, totally separated.  Only their will unites them.  Our insecure monotheism goes into defense mode, and we run away, uttering mean words like "heresy," and insisting that's not us.
 
Poets have written poetically of the Trinity.  Song writers have composed beautiful songs.  Catholics often declare the Trinity a Mystery that is wondrous.  Yet, when the common Christian encounters a Jehovah's Witness, a Oneness Pentecostal, or an LDS missionary--all who question our Trinity, we have a hard time explaining what we know in a way that is simple, practical, and "reasonable."  Yet we treasure our belief.  it is sacred, because it concerns who God is.
 
The difference may seem slight to many LDS (and some trinitarians), but we already feel close to the monotheistic border.  Your doctrine threatens to pull us to a place that we fear is no longer a "one God" worship.  I'm not defining your teaching, but expressing our perceptions.

Of course we rely on scripture--in conjunction with the whisperings of the Spirit. The disconnect between your notion that a scholarly analysis of scripture will inexorably lead all good-faith Bible students to identical theologies, versus the cacophonous reality, is a major reason for Joseph Smith's retiring into the woods in the first place.
The apostles taught the saints of their generation all that they needed to know to be saved. So too did Moses, and Abraham, and Adam. Abraham's "supplements" did not, by virtue of their existence, contradict the teachings of Adam; nor did Moses contradict Abraham; nor Jesus, Moses. Deuteronomy 4:2 specifically prohibits adding to or diminishing from God's commandments--at that point (traditionally) the Pentateuch--and then along come Joshua, Samuel, Nathan, and a slough of other major and minor prophets who spent the next thousand years doing just that. And were they justified? Yes, because they acted not of themselves--but at Jehovah's command.The Judaizers' additions were obviously not authorized; their position was contrary to the decision of the apostolic council at Jerusalem where the saints' obligations vis a vis the Mosaic law had already been decided. Was Peter authorized to "supplement" Paul's epistles by warning the Church against those who would misinterpret them? Because, he did. Was Apollos authorized to teach in Ephesus and Corinth after Paul had already preached in those cities? Because, he did.
Supplementing is not per se contradiction. If it were, Paul wouldn't have written three epistles to the Corinthians, or two to the Thessalonians, or two to Timothy; and Peter and John would have contented themselves with one canonized epistle each.

Good questions. Should we trust the new revelation? John 14:26-27 supports the idea that the Holy Ghost will teach us all things and bring all things to our remembrance. I'd suggest studying out any new revelation carefully and praying about it.
 
Why don't the NT authors already say A, B, and C? Wouldn't it be incomplete? This is largely because we do not have complete records of everything that was taught. We have the four gospels explaining aspects of Christ's ministry and fortunately so, because any given one misses aspect covered in another. Does this make them invalid? No, it merely suggests that different authors had different hi-lites or priorities they felt impressed to recount in more or less detail or simply missed. Aside from the acts of the apostles and the revelation of John, the rest of the NT is essentially comprised of letters to differing people and congregations. Again they obviously weren't meant to cover every possible moral and doctrinal issue, but each had specific areas of emphasis needed by those they were addressed to. For instance the opening verses of 1 corinthians begin with greetings, followed by the introduction that Paul is writing to them to help clear up confusions (a common theme... perhaps apostles are useful for clearing up confusion and contention) that have arisen among them. With that preface it makes perfect sense that he is not planning to break-down every detail of the gospel ad infinitum, but to address the concerns (or points of doctrine) which they are struggling with. I don't recall any of Paul's, John's, James', Judes or Peter's letters beginning with something to the effect, "Behold this letter contains the fullness of the gospel and doctrine of Christ, once having read it you will understand all the mysteries of God and His covenants with mankind".
 
A Gospel doesn't have to contradict the Bible to be a false Gospel. It just has to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible teaches.
 
Here is the real crux of the matter. How many divisions of the Catholic church are there? How many protestant groups? How many other Christian churches? How many non-denominational non-organized study-it-yourself groups? They all dispute just what it is that the bible teaches. The Nicean creed is not biblical... so surely any one who accepts it is following another gospel. What about the age and mode of baptism? The bible does not say specifically it should only be done for adults or babies, by sprinkling or immersion. It gives evidence of how it was done, but it doesn't lay out exact rules, so how can you know if a particular baptism meets the criteria of this gospel? What about marriage? I don't recall the bible stating a specific marriage ritual, but we know marriage is important for procreation otherwise we are under condemnation of fornication or adultery. How do you know if the way you're married is biblical enough to be of this gospel? I could go on, but I think you get the point.
 
Going back to the idea of one kingdom verses multiple; how can you be so sure that the multiple is not what was taught? I cited scriptures that would support the idea. The bible makes it just as likely as not that there are multiple kingdoms, it is just that the single Heaven and Hell idea is the prevalent one in Christianity outside of Mormonism. 

I think Traveler's "minions" is a typo for "millions"

You are correct about Rome. Peter went to Rome and was bishop of Rome and not only that, he was made head of the Church on earth so the successor of Peter fills in the role of both Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff. Currently Pope Francis likes to stress his role a Bishop of Rome.
 
The order of authority goes like this:
1- Pope (oversees the entire Catholic Church)
2- Cardinals-Ecclesiastical leader, ecclesiastical prince, and ordained bishop. They assist the pope with the administration of the Church. Cardinals oversee the different departments of the Church (like Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was overseen by Pope Benedict XVI when he was a cardinal)
3-Archbishops- They are in charge of Archdiocese (imagine a stake president to a very large stake)
4-Bishops- They are in charge of a Diocese (stake president)
5-Priests- Assist the bishops in overseeing the needs of the people, saying Mass, administering the sacraments (6 of 7) and overseeing parishes
 
A diocese is the equivalent of a stake. Catholic Priest=LDS Bishop, Catholic Bishop=LDS Stake President
 
Papal Elecions
When it comes time to elect a new Pope when the previous one dies (or like recently, resigns), the college of cardinals (all cardinals) meet in Rome. For a few days they discuss different issues that are facing the Church and the world. Then they lock themselves in the Sistine Chapel and cast votes for the next Pope. There are no candidates. Canon Law says that any adult male can become Pope (ordination to the priesthood is not necessary to be elected). Although that is the case, cardinals only vote among themselves, so it is a very safe bet that a Cardinal will be elected (almost guaranteed, but technically speaking, Joe Biden can get elected to replace Pope Francis and it will be valid). In order to win the candidate must have a 2/3 majority, which is difficult amongst so many cardinals.
 
Recent Conclaves
The 2005 election took 4 ballots to elect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger pope. That is actually a pretty small amount of ballots, but Ratzinger was John Paul II's right hand man so it was expected that he would become Pope.
 
The most recent elections, 5 ballots were cast to elect Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio. To be honest, I thought it would be at least 6 or 7 ballots as there was no clear "leader" going into the Sistine Chapel like in 2005. According to Cardinal Dolan of New York, the college of Cardinals were very impressed with what Cardinal Bergoglio said about the state of the world and the Church and the direction it needs to go in so throughout the election process it was just a matter of getting to the 2/3 majority. To outsiders, he was a long shot, but going in the Cardinals loved him and most made up their mind about him.
 
The October 1978 conclave that elected Karol Wojtyła took 8 ballots (2 ballots per day). It was the second conclave in a matter of 2 months and they ended up electing the first non-Italian in centuries, Saint John Paul the Great.

It's the like button. It used to be if someone could either laugh at my post or thank my post (it was pretty revealing to see what was mistaken for humor). Now you can only "like". I don't like your post thank you very much (- ha!).
 
Maybe you just blocked everyone who posts frequently.

I see this portion of Alma 32 setup in two phases. First planting the seed, and second, after it is planted, nourishing the tree. Here is an outline:
 
1. Planting the Seed
a. The seed is the word (v28) or in other words a gospel truth (not faith).
b. We must give place in our heart for the seed, good or bad. At this stage we must not cast it out either way because of unbelief. Those who cast the seed out at this stage have not even given it chance to grow or not. They simply reject the word without any serious consideration.
c. If it is a good seed it will: enlarge your soul, enlighten your understanding, and begin to be delicious (end of v28). A bad seed will do no such thing, it will simply not grow at all (v32).
d.  At this stage the bad seed is cast away (end of v32). After having tested the word we can now cast it out because it is dead.
 
2. Nourish the Tree
a. Goal - Allow the tree to take root, grow, and bring forth fruit (v37).
b. If the tree is neglected and not nourished it will wither away (v38). At this stage, we know the seed is good for it began to grow earlier. There is clearly no problem with the seed.
c. Instead the problem is with the ground which has been neglected, and with the lack of care given the tree (v39).
d. With faith, great diligence, and patience, looking forward for the fruit it will take root (v41).
c. Once it takes root it will bear precious fruit which will allow the individual to reep the rewards of their faith (v42-43)
 
Regarding other religions. I have tested some in this manner. As of late I have found some good fruit in the eastern religions. What I have learned is precious to me indeed.

I think this one best fits the tone of the thread title.