About getting spiritual answers

(Read comments to previous post if you're just coming to this discussion)

Knowing Coop and Josh both very well, I understand where they are both coming from. Myself, personally, I am more like Josh here. And speaking 'within the tent' of our own religion as we are here, I feel comfortable saying that although my sentiments agree with Josh, and certainly my understanding of theology is way more like Josh's than like MDH's, my religious practice and faith is likely to remain unaffected.

I have had spiritual experiences that have made it clear to me that I have a stake in and a duty towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That is perhaps not everyone's definition of "testimony", but it's close enough to mine to be operative here.

This means that even though, like Josh, I am more likely to experience these events as a spiritual storm than as a bold confirmation of faith, my faith is that I will weather the storm, and that it will be over soon enough. In that sense, I consider myself fortunate not to be what we might term a 'universalist', for whom all things of faith depend on all other things being infallible. I don't even actually know who MDH is, but I think his or her declarations here but him or her squarely in this category. Maybe he or she would disagree, that's not really the point.

If it isn't fair to use MDH as an example, I'll turn to Coop, who I have had many long discussions on subjects like this with, spanning several decades and many campouts. He and I do not see things the same way, and I accept this about us, treasure it even. (Those of you not of our faith, or not of any faith, just assume for a moment that there are such things as spiritual promptings and personal [bidirectional] communication with the Divine). Coop believes (correct me if I misrepresent, Coop) that 10 times out of 10, if you're in tune with spiritual promptings, you will reach the same answer as everyone else who is in tune with spiritual promptings.

I, quite simply, believe nothing of the kind.I can (indeed, must) separate my belief in God and even my sustainment of the President of the Church from the decisions and day-to-day operations of the Church and from the actions or views of its members. I have to believe that I can pray and receive an answer, and Josh can pray and receive an answer, and Coop and MDH can both pray and receive answers, and each of us can get it heart-and-soul confirmed to us that we're getting the right answer, and all answers can be different. If the other point of view is a theory of Universalist Truth, call this one an idea of Emergent Truth. One is top-down, the other bottom-up.

I'm not sure I'm articulating this very well. Let's just put it out there and see what kind of holes get poked.

Politics and Religion, part 2

So, as I mention in the following chat exchange, I've wondered whether any good can come of further discussing the issue. And I've had additional feedback from emails and facebook messages that I've wanted to address, and I have my own sentiments on the issue, which I haven't even really expressed here. Maybe that will come in time. For now, here's a discussion I had this evening with Rob about it:

Rob: btw, you never gave us all a response to your controversial blog post
me: i know. i am a bad blogger. i've been stewing on it, and debating whether anything good can come of further discussion
Rob: i know what you mean. At the same time, i've had to have proxy arguments with megan in order to satisfy me need for further discussion (with her playing the role of your particular viewpoint)
me: did megan and i win?
Rob: no :)
once she got what i was trying to explain, she agreed with me
on the logical/moral scale as opposed to the legal arguments i was trying to make
me: we kept our tax-free status as a religion that doesn't recognize gay marriage forever even in a state that recognizes gay marriage?
btw, that's not a viewpoint i'm actually interested in defending, just one i was pointing out.
Sent at 10:20 PM on Tuesday
Rob: the main gist of my argument with her was that if you believe that the government should not impose a specific set of moral principles on it's people, then you shouldn't support prop 8...
me: or, in fact, oppose it!
Rob: if you believe the gvnmt should be dictating morallity (a perfectly valid and acceptable viewpoint), then by all means support
me: no, I don't believe they should, and so I can take NEITHER side!
Rob: i mostly took umbrage with the people who said they didn't think the gvnmt should be dictating morality, but supported prop 8
me: because if I oppose it, I am supporting the idea that moral acceptance of homosexuality be taught in public school. Which is also dictating morality.
Rob: no, no, no!
prop 8 was not a referendum to set the curriculum!
me: no, it wasn't. but it's failure to pass would have done so nonetheless.
the curriculum isn't put to referendum.
Rob: it could be, if people's concern was with what is taught in school, than that is what the referendum should have been written to disallow
in my opinion :)
which, by the way, would have been much easier to pass i bet
me: well, you're right, but of course referendums are written by the passionate, not the moderate.
Rob: true
Sent at 10:28 PM on Tuesday
me: besides, (a supporter could argue that) the referendum only legislates the centuries-old legal and cultural precedent, not any particular morality. It was not, after all, a referendum to officially recognize gays as sinners.
Sent at 10:29 PM on Tuesday
Rob: i have to argue that no one is standing up to say that gay marriage should be banned because of precedent
me: what ? that's exactly the argument!
Rob: i doubt that is figuring very prominently in most debates on the issue
me: that the 'definition of marriage' is what's being defended!
Sent at 10:32 PM on Tuesday
Rob: i don't know what you mena by that
i was refferring to precedent as an argument
and saying that is not what most people seem to care about
me: right. perhaps neither do the people defending it. but they claim what they're supporting is keeping the word 'marriage' defined as a union between a man and a woman. Which, I'm saying, is claiming that the precedent of that definition should remain.
Sent at 10:34 PM on Tuesday
Rob: yeas, they're claiming the precedent should remain, but i don't think anyone is arguing the precedent should remain BECAUSE its the precedent
the'yre arguing it based on morality, or the arguments you put forth in the blog post, which i find specious
me: ah, well their reasons for arguing it are, I will admit, not grounded in linguistic conservatism.
Rob: ok, now you're just throwing out words
me: you're the one who drew first blood with specious.

So, if I were a bit more conscientious or devoted, you would get more response on this from me in a timely manner. But I rationalize not providing that by saying to myself that it is unlikely to produce, in the end, anything but hurt feelings, as these types of things have a tendency to do when conducted over the internet. I'd love to be wrong about that, but civil internet discussion is a rare and delicate flower. Nevertheless, if you would like to comment further, I am sure you will do so with respect.

Plane of Knowledge: Know your Antediluvian Patriarchs!

So, this came up in conversation today. I don't expect everyone to get all of these, they're pretty hard to remember. But I expect everyone to get a few of them. I'm giving you Adam and Noah, you fill in the rest as best you can. If you're really feeling like a cheater, this is Genesis 5, KJV.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name (2)________:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten (2)________ were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 And (2)________ lived an hundred and five years, and begat (3)________:
7 And (2)________ lived after he begat (3)________ eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 And all the days of (2)________ were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9 And (3)________ lived ninety years, and begat (4)________:
10 And (3)________ lived after he begat (4)________ eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
11 And all the days of (3)________ were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12 And (4)________ lived seventy years, and begat (5)________:
13 And (4)________ lived after he begat (5)________ eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
14 And all the days of (4)________ were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
15 And (5)________ lived sixty and five years, and begat (6)________:
16 And (5)________ lived after he begat (6)________ eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
17 And all the days of (5)________ were eight hundred and ninety and five years: and he died.
18 And (6)________ lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat (7)________:
19 And (6)________ lived after he begat (7)________ eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
20 And all the days of (6)________ were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
21 And (7)________ lived sixty and five years, and begat (8)________:
22 And (7)________ walked with God after he begat (8)________ three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 And all the days of (7)________ were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And (7)________ walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
25 And (8)________ lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat (9)________:
26 And (8)________ lived after he begat (9)________ seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
27 And all the days of (8)________ were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
28 And (9)________ lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
30 And (9)________ lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
31 And all the days of (9)________ were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat (10)________, (11)________, and (12)________.

Best of luck.