Spiritual Experiences as Valid Means to Determine Truth

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Always speaking the truth" leaves room to also always speak the bullets above -- they are not mutually exclusive.

How is always speaking the truth not exclusive to sometimes not speaking the truth?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

except perhaps for a few who can be characterized by their age or mental capacity)….

 

And I would argue that most of those who enter Mormonism's Celetsial Kingdom will never have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during their mortality.

Note:  Mentioned this subtopic in another thread, so no need to respond anyone as I just want to make a point of how incomplete our visualization of the afterlife can be at times and how likely it involves at least some faulty assumptions, even ones ignoring relatively common knowledge.

If we define ‘not needing baptism based on accountability’ and put that age at 8 for most, then given the likely mortality rate over humanity’s existence (even if one is a young earth who accepts Ussher’s 4000ish BC) it’s not just “a few”, but closer to and possibly more than a majority.  So it’s likely not just “most”, but the vast majority of those who enter the Celestial Kingdom who will never have been members before their death.

I asked for the mortality rate for under 8 from ChatGPT this time and it gave me a nice table (I could use the graph it extrapolated the data from, but that uses puberty, not accountability as the cutoff age; for those who want to see the data points, use the link in the next sentence as I can’t link directly to the graph, you will likely need to scroll down the page some).  Asked for Chattie’s sources and most were likely from Our World In Data:  https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past.  This article from 2013 provided at least some quotes, if not the data (including date of article to show it’s not likely to be out of date plus to the best of my knowledge, a quite high child mortality rate for prehistoric and premodern societies has been accepted by researchers since my youth) : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513812001237#s0015

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

How is always speaking the truth not exclusive to sometimes not speaking the truth?

I didn't use the term "sometimes" -- I wrote: "Always speaking the truth" leaves room to also always speak the bullets above -- they are not mutually exclusive.

You (generic) can always speak the truth (e.g. testify that Jesus is the Christ, perform a baptism, etc.) while also always making mistakes, misspeaking, speaking in error, not speaking all truth from all areas of knowledge, prioritizing the extent and depth of knowledge concerning supporting truths, advancing new and changing revelation, and ordering from the takeout window. 

[JVW]

On 9/3/2025 at 8:21 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Brigham Young spoke of the problem of absolute truth when he said this:

One of our problems is that we like the idea of absolute truth (we really don't like ambiguity). But we run into a problem. And that problem is that our knowledge isn't absolute - it is always relative and our understanding of it is progressive (at least from our mortal perspective). In LDS history, we have that moment after the revelation to lift the priesthood ban when Elder McConkie said (to those who were resisting the change):

The reality that underlies this statement isn't that we now have absolute truth (with the new light and knowledge that came into the world) but rather that our truth was becoming more aligned with our trajectory towards something better. Within Mormonism, as a religion that believes in continuing and progressive revelation, we can be certain of at least two things. The first is that there is some absolute truth that we are looking forward to, and the second is that we do not have it. At best, we will be in a constant series of events in which we discover new truth - some of which will overturn the truth that we thought we knew (and that we thought we knew was absolute). In fact, Alma 32 tells us as much - that at least in the beginning, the only thing that we can know with certainty is that the "seed is good" - and yet, the seed is not our goal, and the seed, when planted, becomes something else. But these kinds of lessons are difficult because we don't like ambiguity, we don't like this sense of having to learn that what we believe isn't exactly true (or that it is only contextually true or relatively true). But, in the end, not only do we not have complete and absolute truth, we also don't know how far we have to go to get there. Almost fifteen years ago now, I wrote a guest blog post on Patheos about Mormonism and three of its primary values - and I think it is still relevant to this sort of discussion:

The first is the idea of ongoing revelation:

The fact that we sometimes receive revelation that contradicts or challenges our previous understanding is, from this perspective, a spiritually healthy occurrence. It means that we are not stagnant - it means that we are in a different place than we were, and it means that we can receive that correction that we were not able to get before.

The second idea that I discussed was about the idea of authoritative revelation:

The point of this is that it is our personal revelation that is most able to help us reorient ourselves spiritually. If we took everyone we know and we drew a line from where they are to an imaginary point where absolute truth is, we would all have unique lines. None of us are in the same place, and all of us will need to take a unique path to arrive at that truth. This is why personal revelation is the most valuable to us - because it alone can take into consideration where we are and where we want to go. Other sources of revelation can provide important insight - but it is a general sort of insight. It is there to help us discover the way to personal revelation. And as Moses told the children of Israel who were unhappy about the individuals in the community who were prophesying without explicit authority (Numbers 11:29): "And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!" This is the goal of religion - not cause everyone to conform but to get everyone moving in the right direction so that we can achieve that eternal objective with the most direct trajectory - so that our knowledge of truth will grow as much as possible in that direct line.

The final thing I mentioned was the connection to all of this with our final reward:

The idea here is simple - in Mormon theology, we are going to be judged by the use we make of the light that we receive. And here again, that personal revelation is going to be far more significant than our understanding of things provided by someone else. I think sometimes we envision revelation as some kind of absolute truth. That God is supposed to tell us exactly what is right in no uncertain terms, and in a way that is capable of being set in stone for everyone, everywhere. That all we need is to read the scriptures the way that God intended, and we will have all the truth. Brigham Young didn't view revelation in this way (there is a bit of irony in this - looking at the quote above - since of course, he himself was responsible for bringing a lot of his cultural and social views into his calling as a prophet). If we look at the Old Testament, in its context, it was given to a group of people who had certain views, and their scripture was their to guide them in the right direction. What Brigham Young implies in his statement above is that both he and the Church were not yet at the end of their journey either - and I think this is still true today - should we be given scriptures again, they would be quite different in places than what was given in the past - because we (those of us who receive it) are in a very different place than those in the past. Should the Book of Mormon be divinely translated again for us today, it would emphasize different things. And the same is true with our personal revelation. Every time we encounter God, we encounter Him from a different place than we were the last time - and so each time we receive revelation, it is something new. We need to learn not to get hung up on the past, as if it was the absolute truth - and should never be contradicted. There is no living gospel in the past.

So, finally, I think that what this really suggests is that the goal for us in mortality (and one that I think we aren't really capable of achieving) is that we don't move from revelation to revelation with these gaps in between. We want to be in a place where we come close enough to the mind of God that we are continuously moving in the right direction - and continuously correcting our course - and continuously receiving revelation. As we approach this, the contradictions become fewer and less significant because we are moving in a more direct line instead of meandering all over the place - and because our understanding gets better. So, for @stelf:

If I go back to Lehi and Nephi and their vision of the Tree of Life, something can come from the divine but it also has to come out of our minds. The two things aren't separate. I think that our amazing experiences are transcendent - and they have the power to help us change our lives - but because they are transcendent - because we can't really reduce them to language. And this means that we aren't really experienced in understanding that communication that God gives us - and so we have to work it out. Sometimes, I think that we misunderstand about the things which Jesus speaks in 3 Nephi 19, which couldn't be written. I think that what this means is that the language couldn't express the transcendent experience - it literally could not be written (there doesn't have to be a deeper thing going on here). So, sometimes, in our efforts to understand, we get it wrong. If all we need to know is that "the seed is good," then just having the experience is enough. For others, that struggle to understand may engage a lifetime of faith and a recognition of ambiguity that comes with it. So my advice is this - don't give up on your personal revelation. Those experiences are the most direct route to understanding yourself and your Father in Heaven.

Just wanted to say I really liked this post a lot. Thanks for writing it.

[JVW]

On 9/3/2025 at 3:36 PM, stelf said:

So, then the question return as to how do we know what the prophets get right or wrong, and we are back to relying on the spirit to teach us the truth. 

I asked that question to God a few years back during covid times. I was very surprised when He responded within 48 hours. Typically I don't expect an answer to a prayer for 1-2 years. I believe that God can reveal to you the answer to that question, the question I phrased as "How do I know when the prophet is speaking as the prophet vs speaking as a man?"

Very briefly, the way I view it is as follows. Moses 6:63 says, "...all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." So everything God has created points to Christ. When the prophet speaks, who is he pointing to? That's how I begin my determination of what's likely to be God's word or not.

[stelf]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

I asked that question to God a few years back during covid times. I was very surprised when He responded within 48 hours. Typically I don't expect an answer to a prayer for 1-2 years. I believe that God can reveal to you the answer to that question, the question I phrased as "How do I know when the prophet is speaking as the prophet vs speaking as a man?"

Very briefly, the way I view it is as follows. Moses 6:63 says, "...all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." So everything God has created points to Christ. When the prophet speaks, who is he pointing to? That's how I begin my determination of what's likely to be God's word or not.

I can understand this as a framework if you have a presupposed belief in Christ. But what if you don't? This just kicks the can down the road so to speak. Also, this would require a "correct" knowledge of Christ, but where do we get knowledge of Christ? From the scriptures and teachings of those who claim to have knowledge of Christ, but why should we trust those sources? Again, just shifting the problem in my opinion.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, stelf said:

I can understand this as a framework if you have a presupposed belief in Christ. But what if you don't? This just kicks the can down the road so to speak. Also, this would require a "correct" knowledge of Christ, but where do we get knowledge of Christ? From the scriptures and teachings of those who claim to have knowledge of Christ, but why should we trust those sources? Again, just shifting the problem in my opinion.

The reason we trust any source is that testing or applying its output produces good results for us on terms we accept as good. This determination, as our reasons to trust any source, are entirely subjective because they take place in our minds. This is why I asked you earlier: Posted Wednesday at 05:00 PM

A balanced approach might be as comfortable leading out with, “Why should we not trust those sources?”

These orientations build up from the earliest stages of our development and involve all kinds of mental states and processes, including those which are recognized as spiritual within secular and scientific disciplines.

[The Nehor]

Also whether the sources are reliable.

[rpn]

I think it is because sometimes we can hear X, ,when what the Holy Ghost was saying was H.   Because we have lay leadership, most of us have had personal experience with seeking to hear Him, thinking we had heard Him, only to later know for sure that we had not done what we thought He wanted us to do.   That is more about mortal fallibility, not about what He is doing or teaching or wants for us.   (And it isn't a bad thing for us to have those kinds of experiences either:  it helps us understand that there is no need to think badly when it happens, that is is because of sin or hubris or ???   Just that we ought to be thankful that it is well established we are responsible only for our own transgressions.)

Edited September 8, 2025 by rpn

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

I think it is because sometimes we can hear X, ,when what the Holy Ghost was saying was H.   Because we have lay leadership, most of us have had personal experience with seeking to hear Him, thinking we had heard Him, only to later know for sure that we had not done what we thought He wanted us to do.   That is more about mortal fallibility, not about what He is doing or teaching or wants for us.   (And it isn't a bad thing for us to have those kinds of experiences either:  it helps us understand that there is no need to think badly when it happens, that is is because of sin or hubris or ???   Just that we ought to be thankful that it is well established we are responsible only for our own transgressions.)

Proof that we are so stupid and useless that even omniscience won’t enable the divine to construct and deliver a message through to us. That is kinda terrifying.

Why are we trying to seek divine direction again?

[stelf]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Proof that we are so stupid and useless that even omniscience won’t enable the divine to construct and deliver a message through to us. That is kinda terrifying.

Why are we trying to seek divine direction again?

Yep, there seems to be an ever distant point where we can understand, but no one has ever actually achieved it. That's why we have to dismiss or minimize so much of what past prophets have spoken. They were just speaking as a man those times. I mean it sure seems like they thought they were speaking God's will because they actually claimed to be doing that, but we know better now.

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, stelf said:

Yep, there seems to be an ever distant point where we can understand, but no one has ever actually achieved it.

Is there any reason to assume divine communication should be better than human to human communication?  I would say no because half of the equation is still human.  Even if we get it right in the moment, with the way our minds work, the message is going to get quickly garbled to some extent if it’s complicated at all, especially with the human tendency to second guess, fill in the gaps, jump to conclusions, etc.  Clear communication will not guarantee that not happening either; I have seen exceedingly clear communication that still results in two people walking away with two different sets of expectations (though with significant overlap as well).  It would require God stepping in and suppressing certain thought processes/habits, imo, and that would decrease our agency…which God apparently refuses to do himself even though it seems obvious to me that he allows it to be done constantly to us by other humans as well as the natural circumstances of mortality which automatically shuts down most of our agency through limitations of the physical brain as well as limited access to accurate information combined with extensive exposure to inaccurate information as well as limited ability for comprehension of either…

The lack of perfect or even above average quality of communication between man and God seems to me to be easily understood as a natural condition of mortality.  So why would we expect anyone to achieve that point?

The problem as I see it comes in when communication with God appears to be more garbled than what we have with each other due to the method of communication, as in it’s all internal and therefore unable to record without interpretation, etc.. So why does God choose that channel knowing the difficulty to verify?  This is what I am interested in.

8 hours ago, stelf said:

I mean it sure seems like they thought they were speaking God's will because they actually claimed to be doing that, but we know better now.

If even one of the best and brightest in God’s actual presence still managed to screw up his own understanding and interpretation of God’s message, rewrite it in his head up to the point he ended up hating God when he could talk to God face to face due to arrogance and pride and other personal qualities, it should hardly be surprising that it happens at times to the rest of us given we are so messed up in self awareness due to our minimal awareness of what’s happening in our own brains and bodies, what’s influencing our thoughts, distracting us, preventing us from registering what we would prefer to register, etc…. though usually with much less dramatic consequences than what happened to Lucifer (assuming his story is not only real and not just symbolic, but told semiaccurately though extremely simplistically, without much detail).

To me, knowing this (“they thought they were speaking God's will because they actually claimed to be doing that”) happens is troubling, but it is also reassuring.  It tells me how important we as actual individuals are to God, he is not going to interfere to make things work out the way he wants in such a way that we lose our self; iow, he won’t impose his will upon us, turning us into his puppets doing or saying just what he wants us to say or do even if it’s very, very important for us to understand and do something.  It seems to be a line he won’t cross, no matter the consequences and my guess is there are a lot of parents out there who would do just that, would love to do it, and would convince themselves it was for the good of their child even without really caring the child would no longer be purely their own self, but a creature of their parents’ design.

Since I don’t want myself or anyone else to turn into God’s robots** even for a second in some minimal way*** the cost does not seem too high to me****.

**what’s the purpose of existence if we aren’t living as fully ourselves?  There is something absolutely gut wrenching repulsive about that idea to me.  It’s bad enough we can’t control the things that influence us and most of the time we don’t even realize they’re there.  Going further, having someone stick their fingers into our brains and move the wiring around to please themselves is disgusting even if these bodies are temporary, disposable shells that will be upgraded substantially come the resurrection.  Having it done to our minds/spirits, our eternal selves is too wrong to contemplate for very long.  Makes me ill. 

***all of mortality is so minute in comparison to the eternities before and the eternities after, if God is going to justify controlling us by ‘it’s such a little nudge’, why wouldn’t he feel comfortable with programming our whole mortal life?

****only because I trust God can undo all the harm caused by screwed up communication eventually and still get us to a place of joy of course

Edited September 8, 2025 by Calm

[rpn]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why are we trying to seek divine direction again?

Because the act of seeking and trying helps us become like Him.   Anything else suggests that we believe there is only one right way to do His will and I'm not persuaded of that idea.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

Because the act of seeking and trying helps us become like Him.   Anything else suggests that we believe there is only one right way to do His will and I'm not persuaded of that idea.

If being Him is not being able to coherently communicate I am not sure I am that eager for that goal.

[JVW]

On 9/5/2025 at 2:38 PM, stelf said:

I can understand this as a framework if you have a presupposed belief in Christ. But what if you don't? This just kicks the can down the road so to speak. Also, this would require a "correct" knowledge of Christ, but where do we get knowledge of Christ? From the scriptures and teachings of those who claim to have knowledge of Christ, but why should we trust those sources? Again, just shifting the problem in my opinion.

I understand what you're saying here. From my personal experience (not from meticulous study and research) I have found that, regardless of denomination, those who take time to read from their religious texts every day, and take time every day to worship God as they understand Him, tend to behave more like how Jesus (or the theoretical perfect human) would. Jesus said, "I am the truth". Anyone who diligently seeks truth trends towards being more patient, compassionate, selfless, and loving.

Specifically regarding Israelite prophets, their purpose is to preach of Christ. If they are a false prophet I can judge that based off of their actions, and whether their words line up with the patterns and evidences I've seen for Christ in my own personal life.

(I guess with this next statement I am tying back into the topic.) Truth is reinforced by patterns. Over my life, as I have personally experienced what makes me feel whole and at peace vs what tears apart my soul, I have come to understand what kind of man I want to be, and who I want to study to achieve that goal. And as I slowly learn about the truth, as I hear other's speak and proffer their opinions, I compare those with patterns I've seen in my own life and what I've studied and experienced and use that as a determination on whether or not to believe them.

Now don't get me wrong, I am certain that I believe a lot of things are true which are not. I know I am blinded by self-deception and I suffer the consequences of my faith in falsehood every day. But that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of growing into a less deceived person over time.

This response is probably a mess but I'm a poor communicator and work has been busy today, so apologies if that's the case.

[Navidad]

I am sure someone must have mentioned this in this thread. . . . There is a significant difference between my truth and Thee Truth. My truth about the LDS church has been honed by thirty-five years of close and personal study of and experiences with the Church. I would never suggest that my truth about the church is Thee Truth about the church. I doubt, in fact, that my truth about the LDS Church is anybody else's truth. My truth doesn't make their truth wrong if it is different from mine. Their truth doesn't make mine wrong if mine is different from theirs. "The opposite of one profound truth is most likely another profound truth" (Bohr). So often we confuse truth and Truth. Or we deliberately make truth Truth in order to bolster our truth, which often refers more to our opinions and beliefs than anything else.

And we often have data or self-selected facts at our disposal to prove our truth! I am sure that the Bucs are a better team than the Falcons. How do I know that is Thee Truth? The Bucs won yesterday. They beat the Falcons by three points. Case closed! What do you say? The Falcons beat the Bucs three times in a row before yesterday's game. Hogwash! That is irrelevant, says my truth, so quickly converted into Thee Truth. Hogwash! Says you! What? the Falcons beat the Bucs three quarters out of four yesterday? The Falcon kicker missed the game-tying field goal by inches? Hogwash says I. We won! That ends the discussion! And on it goes. 

[stelf]

On 9/8/2025 at 9:39 AM, Calm said:

Is there any reason to assume divine communication should be better than human to human communication?  I would say no because half of the equation is still human.  Even if we get it right in the moment, with the way our minds work, the message is going to get quickly garbled to some extent if it’s complicated at all, especially with the human tendency to second guess, fill in the gaps, jump to conclusions, etc.  Clear communication will not guarantee that not happening either; I have seen exceedingly clear communication that still results in two people walking away with two different sets of expectations (though with significant overlap as well).  It would require God stepping in and suppressing certain thought processes/habits, imo, and that would decrease our agency…which God apparently refuses to do himself even though it seems obvious to me that he allows it to be done constantly to us by other humans as well as the natural circumstances of mortality which automatically shuts down most of our agency through limitations of the physical brain as well as limited access to accurate information combined with extensive exposure to inaccurate information as well as limited ability for comprehension of either…

The lack of perfect or even above average quality of communication between man and God seems to me to be easily understood as a natural condition of mortality.  So why would we expect anyone to achieve that point?

The problem as I see it comes in when communication with God appears to be more garbled than what we have with each other due to the method of communication, as in it’s all internal and therefore unable to record without interpretation, etc.. So why does God choose that channel knowing the difficulty to verify?  This is what I am interested in.

If even one of the best and brightest in God’s actual presence still managed to screw up his own understanding and interpretation of God’s message, rewrite it in his head up to the point he ended up hating God when he could talk to God face to face due to arrogance and pride and other personal qualities, it should hardly be surprising that it happens at times to the rest of us given we are so messed up in self awareness due to our minimal awareness of what’s happening in our own brains and bodies, what’s influencing our thoughts, distracting us, preventing us from registering what we would prefer to register, etc…. though usually with much less dramatic consequences than what happened to Lucifer (assuming his story is not only real and not just symbolic, but told semiaccurately though extremely simplistically, without much detail).

To me, knowing this (“they thought they were speaking God's will because they actually claimed to be doing that”) happens is troubling, but it is also reassuring.  It tells me how important we as actual individuals are to God, he is not going to interfere to make things work out the way he wants in such a way that we lose our self; iow, he won’t impose his will upon us, turning us into his puppets doing or saying just what he wants us to say or do even if it’s very, very important for us to understand and do something.  It seems to be a line he won’t cross, no matter the consequences and my guess is there are a lot of parents out there who would do just that, would love to do it, and would convince themselves it was for the good of their child even without really caring the child would no longer be purely their own self, but a creature of their parents’ design.

Since I don’t want myself or anyone else to turn into God’s robots** even for a second in some minimal way*** the cost does not seem too high to me****.

**what’s the purpose of existence if we aren’t living as fully ourselves?  There is something absolutely gut wrenching repulsive about that idea to me.  It’s bad enough we can’t control the things that influence us and most of the time we don’t even realize they’re there.  Going further, having someone stick their fingers into our brains and move the wiring around to please themselves is disgusting even if these bodies are temporary, disposable shells that will be upgraded substantially come the resurrection.  Having it done to our minds/spirits, our eternal selves is too wrong to contemplate for very long.  Makes me ill. 

***all of mortality is so minute in comparison to the eternities before and the eternities after, if God is going to justify controlling us by ‘it’s such a little nudge’, why wouldn’t he feel comfortable with programming our whole mortal life?

****only because I trust God can undo all the harm caused by screwed up communication eventually and still get us to a place of joy of course

I'm going to push back on this. You ask if there is any reason to assume divine communication should be better than human communication. I would say absolutely! Even among humans there are vast differences in ability to communicate. I would absolutely expect a perfected human that has access to all facets of human experience to be able to communicate ideas better than just a regular old human. I do not consider myself an excellent communicator, but I do have many years experience as an educator and a scientist. I would argue that my ability to function professionally has been dependent on communicating things accurately. Teaching a bunch of high school students how to solve algebraic equations required communicating. My job performance was in part based on how accurately I was able to do that. Were there problems? Of course. But not with most of them. Now it sounds like you are saying that even the very best and brightest of God's children (I'm assuming you are referring to lucifer) "misunderstood" even while in his presence. If this is true, you are making a very strong case that we really can't trust anything we think we understand from God.

You also discuss God not interfering. I think this is largely true, but it breaks down for me with multiple counter examples. Now in each of these I do not think we have evidence that God is removing someone's will, but he certainly seems to arbitrarily intervene to stop the action. Alma the younger was stopped by an angel and struck dumb. This had nothing at all to do with what he was seeking or wanted. The man that was going to kill Ammon was instead struck dead before he could exercise his agency. Amulek wanted to exercise power and save innocent women and children from burning. He was told no so that when God used the lamanites to come wipe out the people of Ammonihah his anger would be justified. There are of course many many more stories from scripture that follow this pattern. Outside the scriptures I think of children abused by a trusted adult. At times these children then grow up suffering the consequences of extreme trauma and then themselves committing atrocities.

 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, stelf said:

I'm going to push back on this. You ask if there is any reason to assume divine communication should be better than human communication. I would say absolutely! Even among humans there are vast differences in ability to communicate. I would absolutely expect a perfected human that has access to all facets of human experience to be able to communicate ideas better than just a regular old human. I do not consider myself an excellent communicator, but I do have many years experience as an educator and a scientist. I would argue that my ability to function professionally has been dependent on communicating things accurately. Teaching a bunch of high school students how to solve algebraic equations required communicating. My job performance was in part based on how accurately I was able to do that. Were there problems? Of course. But not with most of them. Now it sounds like you are saying that even the very best and brightest of God's children (I'm assuming you are referring to lucifer) "misunderstood" even while in his presence. If this is true, you are making a very strong case that we really can't trust anything we think we understand from God.

You also discuss God not interfering. I think this is largely true, but it breaks down for me with multiple counter examples. Now in each of these I do not think we have evidence that God is removing someone's will, but he certainly seems to arbitrarily intervene to stop the action. Alma the younger was stopped by an angel and struck dumb. This had nothing at all to do with what he was seeking or wanted. The man that was going to kill Ammon was instead struck dead before he could exercise his agency. Amulek wanted to exercise power and save innocent women and children from burning. He was told no so that when God used the lamanites to come wipe out the people of Ammonihah his anger would be justified. There are of course many many more stories from scripture that follow this pattern. Outside the scriptures I think of children abused by a trusted adult. At times these children then grow up suffering the consequences of extreme trauma and then themselves committing atrocities.

 

I think that God can communicate with us in ways that we can understand, but I think that we can lose the understanding through our own actions or issues.  I mean, God has sent angels before to people, and they still eventually decided that they couldn't trust that as a source of information about what God wanted them to do. 

I think that's what Calm is talking about.  As long as humans are a part of the equation, there is always an ability to interpret the communication incorrectly, or change a correct interpretation into an incorrect one.  The weakness isn't in God, it's in us.  There's no way to get it out of us in a fallen world.  

[stelf]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that God can communicate with us in ways that we can understand, but I think that we can lose the understanding through our own actions or issues.  I mean, God has sent angels before to people, and they still eventually decided that they couldn't trust that as a source of information about what God wanted them to do. 

I think that's what Calm is talking about.  As long as humans are a part of the equation, there is always an ability to interpret the communication incorrectly, or change a correct interpretation into an incorrect one.  The weakness isn't in God, it's in us.  There's no way to get it out of us in a fallen world.  

I hope what I say does not come across as negative to you @bluebell or @Calm. I have a lot of respect for both of you and have found your comments both thoughtful and insightful. However, what these messages seem to be implying is that even God, the greatest of all, is unable to overcome our human inability to understand. I do not think this is true. I have communicated with other people in my life. I know I have not always done so successfully. I also know that I have improved and that currently I am able to both clearly and accurately communicate and understand communications from other people. 

I do not accept that an all powerful God cannot clearly communicate to me simply because I am human.

[Kevin Christensen]

On 9/3/2025 at 11:39 AM, california boy said:

If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the "one true church" and the plan to find that church is suppose to be found by personal answers to prayer then I would say that plan has utterly failed when less than 1% of the population of humans on this planet have found that path back to God.  And even a lot of those that have found that path have left because of the failings of prophets to receive answers to their own questions about doctrine and where to lead this one church.  

If scriptures are the magic key to finding that path or even truths, then how can so many different, often conflicting beliefs, come from scripture.  

Of all the ways to find truth in this world, revelation from God to find truth seems to be the most flawed if one believes in an only one true church paradigm.  Just step back for a minute and reflect on all those millions of people in far greater numbers that members of the LDS church who are willing to devote their entire lives for something they believe God has guided them to.  A lot of those personal beliefs actually lead people away from Christ.  I have traveled the world and I can tell you first hand there are extremely devout people who believe with all their heart that they believe God has revealed His truth to them who are not even Christian.  The longer I live, the less I trust God to show me some narrow path back to Him and the more I trust in who I am as a person and my own relationship with God is what is paramount.  I don't believe God leads us to a single path back to Him.  The very nature of a "one true church" means an exclusion of others and their path back to God.  

I am not saying that there is not value in being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  For some people that may very well be a path back to God that works for them.  But I really bristle at the concept of that being the "one true church".  It's not.  There is no one true church.  Sometimes there is not even a church at all that leads people on the path back to God.  

 

 

Notice that the phrase "one true church" is not part of the formal definition of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1, especially not in the crucial verse.

 Proper interpretation does not mean, add what is missing and remove everything that does not re-enforce what you are conditioned to expect. Deleting 25 words, adding the crucial "one," and ignoring chapter context suggests to me that the reading may lack definitiveness.

Quote

,the [one] only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually

The common misreading is, I submit, due to human nature according to the Perry Scheme, rather than revelation.  Here is position 2 of 9.

Quote

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.  
 

I have made the case at length (In "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista") that Joseph Smith tries to get us to Position 9, which is far more empathetic, tolerant and inclusive, and somehow not a bit cynical.

The Book of Mormon itself is much more open to the notion of God working with everyone where they are:

Quote

For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true. Alma 29:8

And as far as the validity of Personal Spiritual Experiences, I am personally fond of Blake Ostler's personal take here:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2007/spiritual-experiences-as-the-basis-for-belief-and-commitment

I expected someone to post and comment before now.

I have had some notable spiritual experiences along my life journey, but they have also been supplemented by many other kinds of exploration.  Intellectual and practical.  And of course, lots of Kuhn and Alma 32.  Paradigm testing, rather than just puzzle solving within a paradigm, comparative Puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.  I always notice that the God other people tell me that they don't believe in is very different than the one I do believe in.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stelf said:

I do not accept that an all powerful God cannot clearly communicate to me simply because I am human.

(No worries!  And I hope that this doesn't come across as arguing or in any way judgemental of you. )  

I don't accept that either, and that's not what I'm saying (nor what I think that Calm is saying, but I'm sure she'll speak for herself when she's up again).

Is there a more clear way to communicate than an angel appearing and telling you, point blank, God's will?  (I can't think of anything but there could be something I'm not considering.). And yet, we have scriptural records of someone interacting with an angel, and later deciding that what the angel said wasn't actually true.  If even the supernatural appearance of an angel saying specific words in your language can eventually be dismissed, then communicating clearly isn't really the problem.  The problem is us. 

Even the most clear communication is subject to our fallen natures.  God can communicate clearly with us, but that’s still no guarantee of anything  

I've heard people in talks using the analogy of a ham radio (or something similar).  The signal coming to the radio is perfectly clear and unadulterated. But if the radio isn't tuned correctly.  It won't pick it up very well or at all.  Tuning the radio is completely within our ability (because of God's help), but (in my opinion) God is less concerned with communicating with us clearly than He is with getting us to a place where we can benefit from what He's sending.

Sending the angel did no lasting good for the people who rejected its message, though the message was crystal clear.  Clear communication is only half the equation I think. 

 

Edited September 9, 2025 by bluebell

[Calm]

12 hours ago, stelf said:

I hope what I say does not come across as negative to you @bluebell or @Calm. I have a lot of respect for both of you and have found your comments both thoughtful and insightful. However, what these messages seem to be implying is that even God, the greatest of all, is unable to overcome our human inability to understand. I do not think this is true. I have communicated with other people in my life. I know I have not always done so successfully. I also know that I have improved and that currently I am able to both clearly and accurately communicate and understand communications from other people. 

I do not accept that an all powerful God cannot clearly communicate to me simply because I am human.

Apologies if this doesn’t help clarify what I meant, I am rather out of it today…

I don’t mean we can’t understand anything God communicates, we understand a lot of things just as we do with each other.  I mean we will get stuff wrong at times.  For some, it may be pretty minimal and trivial, then there are those who rarely get it right for whatever reason (it may not be their character, but their upbringing); others may only on occasion get stuff wrong but sometimes it’s major because of the incorrect context they place the message in…such as the Priesthood Ban.  I do believe there was likely revelation about being cautious teaching blacks, likely the one for slaves (Sec 134) to avoid them being punished, sold into a worse situation, or even killed by their enslavers (it is hard to write “owners”, just too wrong when attached to people) that got placed for Brigham Young in the greater context of prejudice in general and specifically towards interracial children.  I believe he had a basic idea and kept attaching more and more conditions to it, broadening the context of actual revelation so far he felt justified in excluding blacks from the temple in order to prevent interracial marriage, whether he formulated it that way to himself or not.  Then other leaders took his confidence in his belief as resulting from revelation instead of reasoning and the Ban was solidified in people’s minds as revelation…without too much resistance because at the time there were few blacks as members of the Church or living in areas where the majority of members were in.  A generation or two and few think to even question it.

I guess my biggest point is I don’t believe God will force understanding.  He only uses the opportunities that we give to him to teach us.  And sometimes that can look from the outside quite differently than from the inside.  The apparently humble, usually spiritual man could have a rigidness when it comes to a particular idea, he won’t understand no matter what because he’s not ready to change.  Jonah as described was apparently in my view a decent guy except when it came to Nineveh as he was willing to risk death for the strangers he was sailing with by telling them to sacrifice him to survive.  Even after he accepted some of God’s message, he didn’t process it all.  He was shocked God didn’t punish Nineveh after they repented.  Or that same humble man may want so much to be justified in a belief, he attaches other things to what is revelation, inflating application.

Someone doing evil looks like he’s bound for hell, but he doubts himself and thus is open to the Spirit and maybe God even chooses to shout at him like he did with Alma the Younger.  Alma for whatever reason was willing to change when God used shock treatment.  Laman and Lemuel weren’t, even though they look to me as if they had as much evidence given to them of God’s power and blessings as anyone has.  They appeared too focused on selfish desires for personal authority (‘usurped’ by their younger brother) and possibly comfort (resenting God for placing them in a position where they had to flee the good life, being sons of Lehi as in their culture and many other tribal cultures, family paid for the ‘sins’ of other family members, even if they stuck around, their business likely would have tanked as their family would be ostracized even if they were decent businessmen and not depending on daddy).

Edited September 10, 2025 by Calm

[Tacenda]

I gave up years ago of hoping for a direct feeling that God is with me or listening. I believe it may happen, but I know I'm one of millions. Maybe an angel or someone gone before might be there more often since they have a much smaller realm than God does. 

I just know there's something much bigger than me and that gives me a lot of hope. Wish I had more than that, but to me it's enough or better than not believing in anything out there. But one only needs to see the world and it's beauty and the living species and creatures to know there's more. I've been listening to a great Insta or tik tok where a guy plays the guitar and sings solely for animals and they will go right up to him and enjoy and love it so much. It's enough for me, to have a reality where time is but a moment in eternity. 

I hope you get some answers that help, stelf! 

PS: I do speak to HF when I need to in my mind and out loud. So I must believe the Divine or God is listening after all. 

 

[Tony uk]

I think God will always get through to us, in our human form, in ways we can understand.  I feel it is down to the willingness of the individual to interpret the message.

 Lots wife, while fleeing Sodom was told not to look back at the destruction. She looked back and turned into a pillar of salt. 

It is, I feel, for the specific individual to be open to God's message, and to interpret it accordingly.