βTo be a believer you must be a literalist with a mind open to infinite possibilities.β
- Hugh Nibley
π€¦ββοΈπ€¦ββοΈπ€¦ββοΈπ€¦ββοΈπ€¦ββοΈπ€¦ββοΈπ€¦ββοΈ
The Journal of Discourses may be inaccurate because 19th-century sermons were recorded only in shorthand (mainly by George D. Watt) with no audio. Transcribers routinely altered wording, added or omitted passages, changed pronouns, and rephrased as they converted notes to longhand; speakers rarely reviewed the published text. The Church notes it is not an official or authoritative source of doctrine, and comparisons of surviving shorthand confirm frequent substantial differences from the printed versions.
Godmakers is basically Moses 1, Abraham 3, King Follett Discourse, Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine (McConkie).
The video is probably around 80% accurate, but the bits at the end about Joseph Smith dying for our exaltation is totally false.
youtu.be/vuO2Ov_D08c?featureβ¦
Whatβs cool about Mormonism is how it purposely integrates deception into its theology. The Bible is full of characters who were total deceivers, and abundantly blessed by Jehovah.
Joseph Smith was part of a Biblical tradition of using righteous deception π€
π½ππππ πΎππππ retweeted
"Explain the difference between Platonism and Neoplatonism."
There are many advantages that come with identifying as a believer.
The social connections are an obvious advantage.
Have you ever felt the high of belonging to a tribe? Itβs great.
Whether or not God actually exists is irrelevant.
The benefits of βbeliefβ are tangible.
Joseph Smith definitely practiced polygamy.
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLβ¦
In Christianity each soul is contingent. Souls depend on God as their creator and sustainer. God is absolutely sovereign, and has the freedom to will souls into being, and will souls out of being. Mormon God is severely limited in his abilities by comparison.
If Mormonism is read as a theodicy from preexistence to exaltation, it makes a lot of sense. If it is read as endless cycles of exaltation and infinite regress of gods, it begins to feel more absurd, but interesting regardless. Which makes more sense? π€
OY VEY πππ
Pessoal estranhando que a extrema-direita israelense acusa o Netanyahu de ser prΓ³-palestina. Tem que entrar na mente dos caras e trazer pro contexto israelense a coisa; o cara quer sΓ³ tirar a casa dos palestinos e matar todas as mulheres e crianΓ§as = centro-esquerda prΓ³-palestina moderada. Se quisesse matar todos os homens tambΓ©m ele virava centro-direita moderada.
π½ππππ πΎππππ retweeted
Land's philosophy is a continuity, and logical end, of the Popperian worldview. That is, a direct attack against traditional metaphysics. The mysticism expressed in Land's accelerationism is a Faustian material mysticism, based on a horizontal inverted metaphysics.
Just use common sense, and be skeptical of all sacred cows.
Does the scientific method actually hold science back?
Weβre taught that progress is driven by strict rules, reductive analysis, and cold hard logic.
But psychiatrist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist argues the opposite: historyβs greatest scientific breakthroughs didn't come from following the rulesβthey came from breaking them.
In this interview with Oliver Adelson, McGilchrist explains why discovering new paradigms requires abandoning rigid reductionism in favour of a holistic, interconnected view of the world.
Read the full conversation here: iai.tv/articles/iain-mcgilchβ¦































