I started to read your latest post, but couldn't get beyond the suggestion to get some popcorn. Apparently this was going to be another lengthy, meandering diatribe. We've locked horns before on the issues you've raised, to little effect. So, let me extend an olive branch and make a suggestion. I've begun an online classroom where I teach Joseph Smith's take on prophecy. (Didn't know he had one? Well, he does.) I'd like to extend a personal invitation to you. I've studied your approach in detail; now I want you to study mine with equal diligence. How about sitting in on the 18, one-hour sessions I present to help Latter-day Saints understand the interpretation methodology of their own prophet? Will you take me up on my invitation? It couldn't hurt. If, after taking the whole course, you are still of the same mindset, what have you lost except a little time? That's something you don't mind asking of me with your lengthy offerings. What's sauce for the goose is sause for the gander, too. So, how about it?
Anthony my friend, I don't know if I can commit to all 18 hours, but I would love to give it a try for at least several hours to see how it goes...
I will do so with an open and hungry mind.
With a desire to learn.
Please send me the details of when, where and how I can participate in this online classroom.
I want you to know that I have enjoyed most of the posts of yours that I have ever read and, as I have stated before in the comments section of one of my blogs, I consider you to be one of the great thinkers of our generation.
I truly appreciate the amount of research you have done and the passion and eloquence with which you dispense your knowledge and beliefs.
It blows my mind that you and many others appear to reject the doctrine of the three watches and don't appear to be able to accept the future fulfillment of Gods unconditional promises as contained in modern revelation, but I have not given up on you and I appreciate the fact that you have not given up on me.
Although you and I may differ in our interpretation of prophecy and the fulfillment of end times events, let us not forget that our shared belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ and in the saving power of his infinite and eternal atonement is what really counts.
So bring it on... it is now "show time"... your "show time"...
I accept your olive branch...
teach me about Joseph Smith's take on prophecy.
I look forward to learning from the insights that you are willing to share.
I will post the details of your online training on my blog for the three people that follow my posts to participate in as well! LOL
as one who has read both of your blogs, and in Anthony's case books, I'm interested to see this olive branch play out. I look forward to the assessment of the classes.
The reason I ask is that it may be helpful to have a 3rd party facilitate in this little exercise if you are willing to help.
I purchased Anthony's first three books over a decade ago and they just didn't resonate with me.
When a acquaintance in a neighboring town informed me that he was a disciple of Anthony's and invited me to a one day seminar in SL last year I declined to go with him but it motivated me to dust off the three books and I tried once again to get excited about his approach and again I had the same experience I had the first time... a total disconnect.
Now, at the request, and challenge of Anthony, I am trying for the third time to comprehend what Anthony and some of his disciples are so excited about and it occurs to me that perhaps a 3rd party might be able to help me see what Anthony's books have not been able to help me see.
Perhaps as I make my way through these online sessions and give some feedback, perhaps you would be good enough, along with Anthony to help me see what I am missing.
I participated in the first session the other night and frankly, I am not off to a good start.
I felt like the first hour was extremely boring and designed to prepared people to accept the possibility that things are very different than they think things are.
I have no problem with that concept, I accept disruptive concept pretty quickly when they are backed with solid evidence, but I felt like Anthony's attempt to facilitate a paradigm change was very slow moving and the concepts that he took an hour to present could have been presented in five minutes.
Ironically, I guess I have the same frustration with Anthony's online seminars as he has with my "meandering diatribes".
I am not ready to give up on this challenge as I realize that the first hour was just preparatory.
I only hope things pick up quite a bit and that we can get into something that stimulates a little thought and opens further windows of understanding in the next session.
The other thing Anthony covered was the fact that Velikovski and Dave Talbot have been very instrumental in his belief system.
I know virtually nothing about these people even though I have heard lots of references to them over the years.
I frankly have found that believing in Gods infallible word and studying the scriptures has been the conduit for opening up my understanding about the gospel and prophecy.
commentaries by so-called gospel scholars, let alone scientists, has been a waste of time in my opinon and in fact the scriptures seem to confirm that fact that we are to seek light and understanding directly from God and his word, not from science, ie, the arm of flesh.
It seems to me that Anthony draws heavily on scientific philosophies of men... particularly these two men.
Despite the fact that these two men may have introduced disruptive scientific theories and may be challenging traditional science, it is still science nevertheless.
Hence, Anthony's approach feels to me like it is built on the foundation of the "Arm of Flesh"
I am openly showing my bias up front here because I want to be open and truthful about why I am having a disconnect with Anthony's teaching in the past and after this first session... this way, Anthony, or you, if you choose to help facilitate in this little exercise can know why I am struggling to catch the vision of what Anthony is trying to put across.
(I did not bring up any of these issues during the sessions nor will I bring up any negative stuff during his session out of respect for him and his other participants.. that is another reason why your help in this platform would be helpful)
Finally, (regarding the first session) Anthony introduced the concepts of Catastrophism (sudden change on the earth) vs gradualism (uniformitarianism slow changeover millions of years)
Again, I failed to see the significance of the point he was trying to get across.
I am hoping that your participation in this exercise might be helpful not only to me, but to Anthony.
I have noticed in some of his blogs a frustration he has felt in trying to get his information to a larger audience.
Perhaps you, as someone who apparently has grasped his vision and is excited about it, might be able to help him to better communicate his ideas, helping him to be able to reach the larger audience he is seeking.
Lastly, I get the impression from Anthony that he cannot accept the doctrine of the three watches.
I also get the impression that he feels that if I can grasp what he is reaching that it might cure me of my belief in the doctrine of the three watches.
Why are the two points of view contrary to each other? Why can't both be congruent with each other?
Since you apparently accept Anthony's general premise, perhaps you can explain to me if you feel there is an irreconcilable conflict between his beliefs and mine.
And if his teachings have created a question in your mind about the validity of the three watches doctrine, (Which is the doctrine of accepting Gods promise that every unconditional promise in modern revelation will be fulfilled- proving that there needs to be another restoration) perhaps you can explain why his teachings have created that doubt in your mind.
I think you might be dissapointed in my facilitation skills :)
There are a couple of assumptions I'd like to address:
1. I accept Anthony's premise 2. I accept your premise
Both of these assumptions are not accurate.
I do agree with this:
"I frankly have found that believing in Gods infallible word and studying the scriptures has been the conduit for opening up my understanding about the gospel and prophecy."
While it would be nice if the Holy Ghost revealed clearly and succintly truth on many areas where I am seeking light, I've found that often I'm left to a prolonged process of diligently seeking before clarity is achieved.
Due to this, I've sought out people that stimulate thought. I've found both of you to have done this. Generally I hold back judgement until I feel the truth has been completely revealed.
In that vein, your comment that anthony's premise is the "arm of flesh" and the inference that your's is the Holy Ghost approved premise, is somewhat suspect:)
I find it interesting that both of you are good men seeking truth. Both feel guided by God and that direct truth has been revealed.
From my study of both of your premises, I've found nuggets of truth that deserve thoughtful consideration.
With that, I'm sure you're reconsidering your offer of facilitation :) I always enjoy thoughtful debate and presentation that can spark new paradigms and considerations. It's this that peaked my interest in the proposed olive branch. If you continue on and there is a way I can facilitate the conversation, please let me know.
I don't recall saying my beliefs were inspired and Anthony's are not, in fact the disclaimer on both of my blogs as well as many statements within my blogs identifies the word of God as the credible source of truth and characterizes me as a potentially un-credible source that should be questioned...
I have encouraged people to search the scriptures that I have highlight and opine about in each of the posts to determine for themselves if my interpretations are accurate... and, more importantly, to interpret them for themselves.
The point I was making is that Anthony and I appear to have two very different approaches to learning about and discerning the truth about prophecy and the gospel.
My approach, as I have explained countless times is that I use the four standard works (and attempt to take the holy spirit as my guide while interpreting them.)
I use my understanding and interpretation of the four standard works to judge every teaching and doctrine that I am presented with.
If the apocrapha teaches something that is in total harmony with Gods word, I accept it.
If I am presented with information from the occult that squares with Gods word, I accept it.
If an atheistic scientist reveals something that is in complete harmony with the word of God, I accept it..
However, I find it most benificial to prioritize my time searching the scriptures first. Secondly I might be found purusing the dead sea scrolls and other similar documents.
Other sources follow as I prioritize what is the most beneficial to study.
From time to time I read about what the scientific community has to say this year but it is pretty far down on my listing of priorities.
Anthony, on the other hand, openly and proudly acknowledges the scientists and scientific sources that have so profoundly influenced his belief system.
That appears to be a major source of his process in seeking truth.
I am fine with that if that if how he likes to get his information. I believe truth can be found in a multitude of places... even modern science gets lucky every once in a while.
10 comments:
I started to read your latest post, but couldn't get beyond the suggestion to get some popcorn. Apparently this was going to be another lengthy, meandering diatribe. We've locked horns before on the issues you've raised, to little effect. So, let me extend an olive branch and make a suggestion. I've begun an online classroom where I teach Joseph Smith's take on prophecy. (Didn't know he had one? Well, he does.) I'd like to extend a personal invitation to you. I've studied your approach in detail; now I want you to study mine with equal diligence. How about sitting in on the 18, one-hour sessions I present to help Latter-day Saints understand the interpretation methodology of their own prophet? Will you take me up on my invitation? It couldn't hurt. If, after taking the whole course, you are still of the same mindset, what have you lost except a little time? That's something you don't mind asking of me with your lengthy offerings. What's sauce for the goose is sause for the gander, too. So, how about it?
Anthony my friend, I don't know if I can commit to all 18 hours, but I would love to give it a try for at least several hours to see how it goes...
I will do so with an open and hungry mind.
With a desire to learn.
Please send me the details of when, where and how I can participate in this online classroom.
I want you to know that I have enjoyed most of the posts of yours that I have ever read and, as I have stated before in the comments section of one of my blogs, I consider you to be one of the great thinkers of our generation.
I truly appreciate the amount of research you have done and the passion and eloquence with which you dispense your knowledge and beliefs.
It blows my mind that you and many others appear to reject the doctrine of the three watches and don't appear to be able to accept the future fulfillment of Gods unconditional promises as contained in modern revelation, but I have not given up on you and I appreciate the fact that you have not given up on me.
Although you and I may differ in our interpretation of prophecy and the fulfillment of end times events, let us not forget that our shared belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ and in the saving power of
his infinite and eternal atonement is what really counts.
So bring it on... it is now "show time"... your "show time"...
I accept your olive branch...
teach me about Joseph Smith's take on prophecy.
I look forward to learning from the insights that you are willing to share.
I will post the details of your online training on my blog for the three people that follow my posts to participate in as well! LOL
Send me the details...
I'll be watching for them
cuz that is what I do.
Watcher
as one who has read both of your blogs, and in Anthony's case books, I'm interested to see this olive branch play out. I look forward to the assessment of the classes.
Ano
are you saying that you have read some posts on each of my blog sites or are you saying you have actually read all posts on both blog sites?
I've read all of your posts as well as Anthony's books and blog.
And yes, I did start with your entry #1 and read from there:)
The reason I ask is that it may be helpful to have a 3rd party facilitate in this little exercise if you are willing to help.
I purchased Anthony's first three books over a decade ago and they just didn't resonate with me.
When a acquaintance in a neighboring town informed me that he was a disciple of Anthony's and invited me to a one day seminar in SL last year I declined to go with him but it motivated me to dust off the three books and I tried once again to get excited about his approach and again I had the same experience I had the first time... a total disconnect.
Now, at the request, and challenge of Anthony, I am trying for the third time to comprehend what Anthony and some of his disciples are so excited about and it occurs to me that perhaps a 3rd party might be able to help me see what Anthony's books have not been able to help me see.
Perhaps as I make my way through these online sessions and give some feedback, perhaps you would be good enough, along with Anthony to help me see what I am missing.
I participated in the first session the other night and frankly, I am not off to a good start.
I felt like the first hour was extremely boring and designed to prepared people to accept the possibility that things are very different than they think things are.
I have no problem with that concept, I accept disruptive concept pretty quickly when they are backed with solid evidence, but I felt like Anthony's attempt to facilitate a paradigm change was very slow moving and the concepts that he took an hour to present could have been presented in five minutes.
Ironically, I guess I have the same frustration with Anthony's online seminars as he has with my "meandering diatribes".
I am not ready to give up on this challenge as I realize that the first hour was just preparatory.
I only hope things pick up quite a bit and that we can get into something that stimulates a little thought and opens further windows of understanding in the next session.
The other thing Anthony covered was the fact that Velikovski and Dave Talbot have been very instrumental in his belief system.
I know virtually nothing about these people even though I have heard lots of references to them over the years.
I frankly have found that believing in Gods infallible word and studying the scriptures has been the conduit for opening up my understanding about the gospel and prophecy.
commentaries by so-called gospel scholars, let alone scientists, has been a waste of time in my opinon and in fact the scriptures seem to confirm that fact that we are to seek light and understanding directly from God and his word, not from science, ie, the arm of flesh.
It seems to me that Anthony draws heavily on scientific philosophies of men... particularly these two men.
Despite the fact that these two men may have introduced disruptive scientific theories and may be challenging traditional science, it is still science nevertheless.
Hence, Anthony's approach feels to me like it is built on the foundation of the "Arm of Flesh"
I am openly showing my bias up front here because I want to be open and truthful about why I am having a disconnect with Anthony's teaching in the past and after this first session... this way, Anthony, or you, if you choose to help facilitate in this little exercise can know why I am struggling to catch the vision of what Anthony is trying to put across.
(I did not bring up any of these issues during the sessions nor will I bring up any negative stuff during his session out of respect for him and his other participants.. that is another reason why your help in this platform would be helpful)
Finally, (regarding the first session) Anthony introduced the concepts of Catastrophism (sudden change on the earth) vs gradualism (uniformitarianism slow changeover millions of years)
Again, I failed to see the significance of the point he was trying to get across.
I am hoping that your participation in this exercise might be helpful not only to me, but to Anthony.
I have noticed in some of his blogs a frustration he has felt in trying to get his information to a larger audience.
Perhaps you, as someone who apparently has grasped his vision and is excited about it, might be able to help him to better communicate his ideas, helping him to be able to reach the larger audience he is seeking.
Lastly, I get the impression from Anthony that he cannot accept the doctrine of the three watches.
I also get the impression that he feels that if I can grasp what he is reaching that it might cure me of my belief in the doctrine of the three watches.
Why are the two points of view contrary to each other? Why can't both be congruent with each other?
Since you apparently accept Anthony's general premise, perhaps you can explain to me if you feel there is an irreconcilable conflict between his beliefs and mine.
And if his teachings have created a question in your mind about the validity of the three watches doctrine, (Which is the doctrine of accepting Gods promise that every unconditional promise in modern revelation will be fulfilled- proving that there needs to be another restoration) perhaps you can explain why his teachings have created that doubt in your mind.
I think you might be dissapointed in my facilitation skills :)
There are a couple of assumptions I'd like to address:
1. I accept Anthony's premise
2. I accept your premise
Both of these assumptions are not accurate.
I do agree with this:
"I frankly have found that believing in Gods infallible word and studying the scriptures has been the conduit for opening up my understanding about the gospel and prophecy."
While it would be nice if the Holy Ghost revealed clearly and succintly truth on many areas where I am seeking light, I've found that often I'm left to a prolonged process of diligently seeking before clarity is achieved.
Due to this, I've sought out people that stimulate thought. I've found both of you to have done this. Generally I hold back judgement until I feel the truth has been completely revealed.
In that vein, your comment that anthony's premise is the "arm of flesh" and the inference that your's is the Holy Ghost approved premise, is somewhat suspect:)
I find it interesting that both of you are good men seeking truth. Both feel guided by God and that direct truth has been revealed.
From my study of both of your premises, I've found nuggets of truth that deserve thoughtful consideration.
With that, I'm sure you're reconsidering your offer of facilitation :) I always enjoy thoughtful debate and presentation that can spark new paradigms and considerations. It's this that peaked my interest in the proposed olive branch. If you continue on and there is a way I can facilitate the conversation, please let me know.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I don't recall saying my beliefs were inspired and Anthony's are not, in fact the disclaimer on both of my blogs as well as many statements within my blogs identifies the word of God as the credible source of truth and characterizes me as a potentially un-credible source that should be questioned...
I have encouraged people to search the scriptures that I have highlight and opine about in each of the posts to determine for themselves if my interpretations are accurate... and, more importantly, to interpret them for themselves.
The point I was making is that Anthony and I appear to have two very different approaches to learning about and discerning the truth about prophecy and the gospel.
My approach, as I have explained countless times is that I use the four standard works (and attempt to take the holy spirit as my guide while interpreting them.)
I use my understanding and interpretation of the four standard works to judge every teaching and doctrine that I am presented with.
If the apocrapha teaches something that is in total harmony with Gods word, I accept it.
If I am presented with information from the occult that squares with Gods word, I accept it.
If an atheistic scientist reveals something that is in complete harmony with the word of God, I accept it..
However, I find it most benificial to prioritize my time searching the scriptures first. Secondly I might be found purusing the dead sea scrolls and other similar documents.
Other sources follow as I prioritize what is the most beneficial to study.
From time to time I read about what the scientific community has to say this year but it is pretty far down on my listing of priorities.
Anthony, on the other hand, openly and proudly acknowledges the scientists and scientific sources that have so profoundly influenced his belief system.
That appears to be a major source of his process in seeking truth.
I am fine with that if that if how he likes to get his information. I believe truth can be found in a multitude of places... even modern science gets lucky every once in a while.
Post a Comment