Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,003 Excellent


About pogi

  • Rank
    Lost my face in the fuzz

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,952 profile views
  1. You are right, I don't see your heart involved in the belief process at all - that is why I am concerned. Because we are taught that "with the heart man believes unto righteousness (Rom 10:10). Instead of believing with your heart, you lean unto your own understanding, when he have clearly been taught to "trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5-6). You don't care that this is circular? I thought you told me that you believe the Bible because "life" taught you. You have yet to give me specifics about how "life" taught you the Bible is the word of God.
  2. The spiritual battle ground for the soul is the heart. That is where all spiritual truths and lies are told. That is why we are counseled "above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it (Proverbs 4:23). The question is, which spirit are you going to follow? Here is a test to see if you can trust your heart - Go deep within your soul and honestly ask yourself this question, "where is my treasure?" If we seek the Lord with all of our hearts, where will we find him? Answer: Your heart (Ephesians 3:17). When you find him there, what are you to do? Answer: Trust in him with all of your...yes, heart - because that is where he resides. That is where his spirit testifies of all truth. That is where his word is written - so long as our treasure is the Lord. How did these men recognize the voice of the Lord? And these?
  3. Never? How do men believe the word of God? Where is the word of God written? ...You guessed it! Is it the Bible that testifies to our spirit? More to say later
  4. What do you mean "you see clearly"? How? How is your vision more clear then mine? I thought we all "see through a glass darkly" and "know in part" (aka relative and not absolute knowledge)" (1 Corinthians 13:12) Relying on faith and hope and charity (1 Corinth 13:13). Yet you are claiming "absolute knowledge" of "absolute truths"? Former, we have been through this before about the scriptural heart. You are not taking this in context. The Lord promised a new heart, that he would write his law on the fleshy tablets of the heart, that only the pure in heart can see God... If God's law is supposed to be written in our hearts, shouldn't you trust it? Was it the Bible or your heart that thirsted and hungered after eternal life? Why did you trust in your heart that you did not yet have it? Wasn't it something outside of the Bible and within you (a spiritual satiation) that convinced you that you have eternal life?
  5. I agree, but since it is his certainty and his doubt, based on his psychological state/perspective and not my certainty and my doubt, then it is more accurate to say that his certainty and doubt are relative rather than absolute.
  6. I guess it depends on whose perspective you are talking about, because mine is still fully intact, and always will be I actually think we are still along the same line of perspective, I just use different words for different reasons. See my last post, I finished that before reading your post. It is basically what you are saying. To me, I find the distinction incredibly useful in a holistic paradigm. Think of it this way - we have previously agreed that truth is relative. If truth is relative from a mortal perspective, then everything that can be derived from that truth is also relative - certainty, knowledge, etc. That is why I see it as more precise to keep absolutism and its language outside the realm of things of relativity (which we are limited to). To say that we can have absolute certainty of a relative truth, just doesn't seem to work because a relative perspective cannot produce anything that is absolute. I understand that linguistically it can mean different things to different people, and that is ok, that is their relative truth. But when we are talking about a holistic paradigm, it becomes important to be precise in distinguishing relative perspectives (truth, knowledge, certainty) with the absolute perspective of this "ideal community" aka "God". Of course it matters how you are defining "absolute certainty", but to me "absolute" means "free from imperfection; complete; whole; free from limitation; unlimited (dictionary.com)" With that use of the word "absolute", in no way can mortal man's certainty be absolute, as it is limited to their perspective - making it relative, and therefore fallible. A relative perspective, can only give us a relative truth, knowledge, certainty, all of which are fallible. An absolute perspective gives an absolute truth, knowledge, certainty, all of which are infallible (as is the meaning of "absolute"). Amen!
  7. "That thing" being your limited relative perspective. I don't know if we can even say that we have an absolute perspective of our own inner worlds to be honest - the subconscious reasons behind our beliefs, fears, bias, emotions, etc. Most of us know very little about the inner workings of our hearts/minds/beliefs/doubts. We don't take the time and effort to go deep inside the observers seat to witness ourselves for ourselves. It is a mostly unexplored universe in there. I have been meditating for several years now and feel that I am just barely breaking the surface of an inner and ever expanding universe. I am sure a hard-core flat-earther would say the same thing. But, knowing all those other things, and seeing all those other perspectives, might make them able to doubt. You can't know that you can't doubt, until you know what else there is to know. All that you can know is that you can't doubt right now, given your vastly limited perspective. Basically you are saying that I am confident despite my larger ignorance. Before Christ, would you have doubted that water can be turned into wine, that the dead can be raised to life, that the blind can be made to see by anointing their eyes with spittle in mud, the deaf to hear, that it is possible to step onto water and not into water, that tempests can be rebuked and calmed by man, etc. Think of everything we don't know! Corporeal bodies defying gravity (angel Moroni, etc), telepathy (prayer), all of these things we have faith in but can't explain. It all points to a much bigger picture then we can perceive. We have great reason to question our limited perceptions/perspectives. Again, that is what I call relative knowledge based on my limited perspective and potentially faulty perceptions. But I can't know that my experience of blue is the same as yours, or the same as God's, but it is my personal reality for now. I have no problem with claiming a relative knowledge. "Blue" is just a word/symbol for a indefinable subjective experience that I have. Where does blue end and green begin? Blue is not objective. It cannot be compared against the bigger picture. We are incapable of perceiving the invisible spectrum (ultraviolet, infrared). Will the ability to perceive those spectrums in the universe alter how we perceive other colors? What other variables of sight are we incapable of seeing? Some animals like birds, bees, and fish can perceive of these wavelengths and see a totally different world then we do. In many ways, we are literally blind and claim to see. Our perceptions and abilities are vastly limited.
  8. Noah's Ark.....i know call me crazy.

    It happened here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/solemn-assembly?lang=eng It is interesting that the setting apart of the President happens before the sustaining vote. Does that happen with any other position? Whichever order it happens, the way I see it is that the one act (ordination) is ratified by the other (common consent). Usually the ordination is deferred until after the sustaining vote however.
  9. I don't throw out the term knowledge. I use it all the time. I simply recognize that it is relative to my perspective and therefore fallible, as you state. Am I confident that my perspective/beliefs aligns with the beliefs of this holistic ideal community - not at all. I can be confident in what I do and experience. I know that if I walk into a wall, I can be confident that I will hit it and it will hurt. That is my subjective truth. However, I am less confident that my perspective/experience corresponds with the what is outside of my experience. Because we cannot confirm and compare our experiences/perceptions with what is out there, we have no way know if "sometimes" things correspond. To say that we "sometimes" perceive things as they are is a guess based on no evidence whatsoever. I am contrasting absolute knowledge with what I call relative knowledge. Anything less then absolute knowledge/certainty is really just belief. You call it fallible knowledge, I call it relative knowledge, but I think it is all beliefs because it is all unverifiable (in the absolute sense). Because we can't compare it against the perspective of the ideal community, all we can do is believe. To me, confidence and the lack of doubt does not make a belief any more "true" (in the absolute sense of the term), but it will give it more gravity in the relative sense of truth. Our beliefs are our "truths" (in the relative sense of the term). You cannot rightly say that you are "absolutely" unable to doubt (you don't have an absolute perspective). All that you can accurately say is that you are relatively unable to doubt based on your relative and vastly limited perspective. You are describing the correspondence theory of truth, which is unverifiable. What is a computer? What is a desk? Those are just words, but the experience of them is based entirely on our perspectives and our own judgments/beliefs. For example, you might say that you are absolutely confident that you are "touching" your keyboard, but that might not mean what your experience/perspective tells you. The more we learn about physics, the more we learn that we can't actually "touch" anything in the way that we might perceive the experience initially. In other words, "touch" can mean different things to different people based on perspective. That is true with all words. We can't guarantee that our perspective corresponds with the absolute perspective. And without that absolute perspective, all we can do is believe in our relative truths. Absolute holism would be difficult to accept outside of a paradigm like Mormonism, because it would suggest that we can never know anything (in the absolute sense). However, Mormonism gives us a hope to one day become God's ourselves and know absolutely. This is eternal life (Godhood) - to know God. To know God as he is, is to be a God as he is - to see as he sees. I believe this is accomplished through the absolute perspective of the light of Christ. I like this:
  10. Noah's Ark.....i know call me crazy.

    I think yours is worded poorly too . I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder, but I know what you meant. You make it sound like he holds different keys from the President, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t hold all the keys that the President holds, but he holds the exact same specific keys “to preside over his quorum” that the president holds. Perhaps I should have added the word “specific” in the same original sentence.
  11. When God (who sees all the variables with an absolute perspective) "speaks" to God (who sees all the variables with an absolute perspective), then there are no logical limits of language. They simply know. God could not know our hearts and be a perfectly just and merciful judge without the ability to decipher this ineffably pure language of the heart. He simply knows. That is how prayer works. Perfect on his end, while we are still learning the language on our end. It is only relatively certain (if that is even possible) - in relation to what you believe. You may be fairly accurate about that thing, but you are certainly missing the BIG picture. You may be describing an atom, while being blind to the tree it is apart of - and therefore you are missing out on the fruits. The point is - YOU CAN'T KNOW WHAT THE IDEAL COMMUNITY WOULD BELIEVE (sorry, not yelling, just emphasizing). Your conditional "if" that makes a thing knowable, is entirely unknowable Good to know it has a name - I am a holist! I am happy to know that there are others quacks out there like me. I see this "idealized community" you speak of as a form of holism in itself. It wouldn't be ideal, unless it was whole. We do not experience objects as they are as much as we experience objects as we perceive them. We do not react to things, we react to our beliefs and judgments about things. Our experience are the real gravity of relative truth. For example, people may react/experience in a myriad of different ways to a given stimulus, even in a controlled environment, based on how they perceive the stimulus. That's a big "if" that you cannot know. You therefore cannot say with any degree of confidence that you are experiencing it (as it is) now. All that you can say with confidence is that you are experiencing your perception of it. It might be the same "if" you could know...but you can't...not even close.
  12. Inquiry to what end? You seem to think that we can justify our beliefs in mortality through inquiry, but all we will find through more inquiry is more beliefs, which need more justification through more inquiry, ad infinitum... All we will attain in mortality is...belief. That is the end of inquiry in mortality. You said: That's what I call "absolute truth" and absolute certainty - only possible through an absolute perspective, because we can't know one thing (and how it relates to the whole) with absolute certainty until we know all things with absolute certainty. All variables of truth are interconnected in one great whole. We cannot compartmentalize those truths and understand their absolute meaning without the BIG picture. And that is exactly what you are describing as well...belief. Your "truth" you describe is unknowable and unjustifiable, it is simply a belief. To me, belief and relative truth are basically synonymous. It is what creates our relative experiences of reality. It is the only "truth" that we can "know" in mortality. It carries with it immeasurable weight, and gravity. Here are some more writings of thoughts I have on this subject: I agree with you that we have a duty to continually inquire, but the "truth" you (and I) speak of will not be experienced in mortality.
  13. church-owned businesses pay tithing?

    Good point. They should donate 100% of their proceeds, which are not invested back into the company, instead of 10% only for some serious tax deductions, and it all ends up back in their pocket anyway. Is that really legal though?
  14. Noah's Ark.....i know call me crazy.

    The prophet is the only one with the keys and authority to declare God's word for the entire church, but it does not become officially binding doctrine until it is accepted by the law of common consent. The thing is that the prophet can only be a prophet by the law of common consent. Not only are the scriptures (doctrines of the church) accepted and given authority by the law of common consent of the general membership, but so is the prophet. He holds all the keys of priesthood authority. Through ordination, each priesthood holder receives certain keys to perform in their respective roles. In other words, a 12 year old deacon's quorum president holds the same keys to preside over his quorum that the president of the church holds. Thus, the president presides over the entire church (by the law of common consent, the keys of the priesthood, and the Holy Spirit) and each priesthood holder presides over their individual quorums by the same means. They are also accepted by common consent, given keys, and are entitled to the inspiration of the "ultimate teaching authority" - the Holy Spirit. This might help explain it more clearly then I have done:
  15. But in mortality our beliefs will always fall short of these "idealized beliefs" of infinite perspective. There is no way to compare our perspective/beliefs against this infinite perspective/idealized belief, and therefore your version of truth is inaccessible to the mortal man. As you state, we will "never fully know". So, without an infinite perspective, your version of truth is not verifiable/justifiable regardless of the amount of inquiry we give. Man's version of truth will always be relative to this absolute and universal truth from the eternal perspective of infinity. I actually think my philosophy of truth closely aligns with yours. The truth that you speak of, I call God's truth - you call it "infinity community" - but I think it is the same idea. It is absolute. Man's version of truth is relative to his limited perspective of God's absolute (all seeing) truth. It is all about perspective - even for God. It is this infinite and eternal perspective of all variables of eternity that make it absolute, with certainty and reliability. Man's perspective is limited to only a handful of the variables of eternity and will therefore be fallible until we see as God sees. Truth is relative. Man's truth is relative to the limited variables that he can perceive of (which are colored by culture, bias, etc), and he fills in the blanks with his beliefs. This is how we perceive of a single cohesive picture from individual pixels - we fill in the blanks. The more variables/pixels we see, the more clear the overall picture is. God's truth, on the other hand, is relative to every possible variable (there are no blanks to fill in) - which is my definition of "absolute truth". In this way, the ideas of relative truth and absolute truth are not mutually exclusive. Relative truth is truth as seen from a limited perspective, and absolute truth is truth as seen from an absolute perspective. Of course, relative truth is our experience of truth in mortality, while we can only have faith in absolute truth - until we become God's ourselves with an eternal perspective. Here is an earlier post I made on this subject: I see it like this - Mark's version of truth is the only truth that we can know in mortality, while your version of truth is something that we can have faith in only. Neither one is necessarily wrong. I see my perspective as a bridge between each of your philosophies.