Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CV75

  1. I think we can always find opportunities to judge whether people are using good judgement in sharing their convictions on a particular non-essential point, and that these convictions can change as the Lord shares more light and knowledge as the particular point becomes essential (individually and collectively).
  2. Ultimately i think we obtain a spiritual conviction of the claims per Alma 32.
  3. CV75


    RE: Brigham Young, I think it comes from Journal of Discourses, 4 (the enemies of God, if they persist, will be sent back, or turned back (i.e. rejected) into their "native element"). But I think he might have been referring to the glory by which their bodies (element) are quickened (D&C 88:28-32), and which defines their final, permanent, natural state in immortality, and not referring to their gettig blasted into the finest particles of spirit element where they no longer exist as entities.
  4. When I look up "Faith Crisis" on lds.org, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/faith-crisis?lang=eng I get this: with a link to this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/answering-gospel-questions?lang=eng Here is a series that might help you identify your particular area of concern: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/latter-day-saints-channel/watch/series/his-grace/faith-crisis-what-do-we-do-when-we-feel-nothing?lang=eng Hit "Previous" "Next' or the Watch more His Grace videos here. to see more or to browse.
  5. What have you been able to identify as the most important issue prompting your faith crisis?
  6. I don't know and I don't care. When I joined the Church in the mid-70s, I believed the Second Coming would occur around the year 2000, which was a conveniently long way off at the time . As time went on I pushed the timing further out but always hovering around the opening of the sixth seal, which conveniently gives a lot of (as in centuries) leeway. I am in no hurry, personally. The more my faith grows, the more I can envision it being after my lifetime, which I hope is long--another 30 years at least. I know people have cited Patriarchal Blessings and so forth confirming that they will
  7. To listen, understand and even relate does not mean to believe and accept. We only believe and accept by following the method set forth in Alma 32, which interestingly enough applies to any sphere of knowledge, for the purposes of this discussion, typically characterized as scientific or spiritual. If you choose to operate in the devil’s sphere, you get that kind of knowledge and if you choose to operate in God’s sphere you get that kind of knowledge. Call it truth if you wish, but it isn’t necessary. It is God’s knowledge (or to refer to D&C 19, “Endless” knowledge, punishment, etc.).
  8. That is correct; it is just an invitation that gets extended as opportunity arises .
  9. Thank you, Calm -- I guess it wasn't such a hot topic after all!
  10. It would be interesting to go back into he archives and see if that talk made it on this board -- that is the kind of talk that gets (got?) a lot of attention here, for the reasons you describe.
  11. There's a really good book about that which i highly recommend: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. But now I am kind of confused in that your OP says it was amazing what he picked up on that you hadn't, an invitation to explore our doctrine from another angle (an approach that is covered in the book I mentioned).
  12. That's good enough, no need to go into details. Avoiding meaning of one's life, one way or another, is a big problem and as you point out, can only be subjectively motivated. The types of reality are extremely important to recognize and I can see how the philosophical approach you use can be viewed as an objective analysis and help.
  13. The contradiction of being both tight and rejective sounds difficult to navigate. What have you concluded after this exchange with him, in light of your trying to get a better understanding of our doctrine?
  14. Given your knowledge of your family background and the content of the talk, why did you choose it to initiate a weekly discussion?
  15. I think those who are predisposed to be divisive will find reasons to be divisive. There is a distinction between being divisive and being unifying on common grounds while recognizing differences. Humor can be used for either (and neither). A “true Christian” in my opinion, which is most superficial because it isn’t worth my time judging others, is one who identifies with and tries to follow Christ. I say that acknowledging that there are Christlike people who don’t.
  16. So, getting back to the atheist -- I seem to recall you were successfully able to present the Gospel to one or more by helping them change their view on "truth.". Can you summarize that conversation if it isn't too much trouble? Thank you, either way!
  17. Alma 32 is the go-to for showing how to know something new. But because so many people in these discussions quote from D&C 93, I feel obligated to address those verses that mention truth. What is interesting to me is that both truth (knowledge) and intelligence are supposed to act for themselves, which tells me that they are not "inanimate things" but attributes of His children (what we are and what we are becoming). God organizes and places us according to our readiness to act and use the materials He avails to us so that we can advance and progress. In general, it seems that wh
  18. Maybe we can break it down. According to scripture, truth is knowledge. Knowledge is processed in your brain and mind, and transmitted through various means. You can only have and transmit as much knowledge, and quality of knowledge, as your willingness, opportunity, resources, developmental level, mental states, etc. allow. It is said that God has placed knowledge in the sphere with intelligence, which operate together as fact/information/skill or talent and agency within a larger sphere. The larger sphere is the company of communicating brains and minds under various circumstances. He d
  19. My knowledge and description of God is true, or correct for me within my sphere, and for anyone who shares my description with a sufficient measure of appreciation. To do that of course we need minds to do that, otherwise true and false becomes irrelevant. This knowledge and description can build over time. I am using God as an example. We can do the same thing with points concerning Joseph Smith, green tea and atoms. Disagreement between people might lead them to assert that the other’s knowledge is incorrect, incomplete, false or not true, but when they consider this may be the result o
  20. When you say you “know the truth” I understand you to mean that based on your experience and practice, you possess knowledge that you believe is correct to the point that you can describe God and live, benefit and swear by your knowledge. Just like a diehard atheist concerning his knowledge of green tea, obtained through experience and practice. He cannot say his knowledge of green tea is more legitimate than your knowledge of God simply because he attends to the world differently than you do. To answer the question, "How do I know when I know the truth?", I would say people know when the
  21. Now if the person that doesn’t know what you do says you cannot know God exists because it has not been / cannot be proven, you can say a) things exist independent of what he (or everyone) knowing it does; b) knowledge is in the mind and subject to biased choice; and c) your knowledge of God is proven by testing the claims and experiencing the promised results. Whether a point of knowledge is "correct" or not is irrelevant if you are happy with what you have from applying what you know, or to paraphrase, if he enjoys that which he is willing to receive, not being willing to enjoy that which he
  22. Where truth is knowledge, you cannot have a knowledge of all things as they are, were and are to come without choosing it over the opposing knowledge of all things as they are not, were not, and are not to come. We know darkness because we are born into it, and we know light because we are born with it. Choosing one expands agency and the other expands condemnation. So, you can have correct and incorrect knowledge, which we assert and describe as true and false knowledge, or colloquially and metaphorically refer to as truth and falsity... but knowledge is not the thing, or the subject itself (
  23. I would say that knowledge exists in the mind that possesses it. The subject of that knowledge may or may not exist. For example, knowledge of the sun exists in our minds, but the sun itself does not, and the sun exists independently of our having that knowledge. Knowledge of Yoda exists in our minds, but Yoda does not, and Yoda, as far as I know, does not exist at all (but if he did, it would be despite my not knowing that).
  • Create New...