The Achievements

[wordzee]

Heavenly Father is the author of all. He created all! All truth comes by way of the Spirit despite what category you put it in.

Silly boys, stop throwing your intellect around like you own it. When any one of you can create a soul then you can start disputing what is or is not of God. His scriptures are absolute and they say All things are Spiritual.

Personally, I appreciate anything that brings me closer to Christ. If that's understanding through science how amazing a flower is or opening my Scriptures and being touched by the Spirit in profound ways, it matters not which is better - it all brings me closer to my Savior.

[Tarski]

Heavenly Father is the author of all. He created all! All truth comes by way of the Spirit despite what category you put it in.

Silly boys, stop throwing your intellect around like you own it. When any one of you can create a soul then you can start disputing what is or is not of God. His scriptures are absolute and they say All things are Spiritual.

Personally, I appreciate anything that brings me closer to Christ. If that's understanding through science how amazing a flower is or opening my Scriptures and being touched by the Spirit in profound ways, it matters not which is better - it all brings me closer to my Savior.

who doesn't really exist in my opinion.

But lets forget that for a minute. Please tell me an instance of when you were "touched" in a "profound" way. Then tell why it was profound.

[alexkidd]

Witnesses have an external source. That is what makes them witnesses. The human body is a complex signal receiving technology. The human body is capable of receiving all types of energetic (and from realms other than the energetic category) signals; and is also capable of making at least basic interpretations of those signals including some grasp of the signal's source. This applies to the rays of the sun ("Gee, I feel warm inside! What's that? Look at that big furnace out in space billions of miles away, you say? I don't THINK so!"). This also applies to the rays of the spirit. This is NOT an analogy. The spirit is a signal on the SAME ORDER as the rays of the sun are. "Why can't I feel it, then?" Answer from me: I don't know. I do know that the 3 witnesses I have had were concrete experiences. I don't walk around receiving that same signal. I trust that I did at one point in the past. I do experience a daily preservation from the spirit, but that takes me farther in this discussion than perhaps I should go.

"Rays of the spirit"? Yikes! Could you tell me where those show up on the electromagnetic spectrum? If these rays are physical in nature, they must be observable.

[alexkidd]

When any one of you can create a soul then you can start disputing what is or is not of God.

First prove there's such a thing as a soul, then I'll begin creating one.

[Son]

I have a book that I bought in a library sale for nostalgias sake since it reminded my of the books I used to find collecting dust in old barns and other weird places growing up.

I loved science books when I was a little boy.

This book is still rock solid in construction and binding. The cover is so solid and serious, the pages smell like musty knowledge. It is from 1942 and it is a physics text book of about 500 pages (Introduction to Physics by H. Howe").

I decided to read it and one of the things that stood out was this;

99% of what is in that book is still considered to be true in its regime and is still taught in college! (and most of it was known clear back in the 1700s)

Now since it is physics, it uses equations and terse sentences. It amazes me how much knowledge is packed into that book. No fluff. The work of many ingenious people of the past.

And yet it is only about as long as the New Testament (which seems to me to be repetitious).

So thatâ??s a lot of hard won knowledge in that little book.

But wait!

Itâ??s only an undergraduate book on basic college physics for physics majors! It only scratches the surface of a vast body of knowledge.

If we were to add the knowledge found in the textbooks used in all the classes for a physics graduat student we would still have only scratched the surface and yet it would take well over 10,000 or 15,000 pages.

But wait! Itâ??s only one subject. It could have been a chemistry book or a math book or a book on human anatomy.

So letâ??s call this kind of knowledge that is still considered to be true in its regime and is still taught in college core scientific knowledge.

How much is there of this core scientific knowledge if we donâ??t waste words?

Well, I can't even imagine. Just the needed math and physics books alone would take up a whole floor of a college library. Iâ??m talking about the stuff that will still be considered true in itâ??s regime 50 years from now (like Newtonian physics) and perhaps forever.

Now this isnâ??t the knowledge of one organization or one sect of scientists. It is the science taught in all major universities and is accepted in the strong but theoretically tentative way that makes up our best science.

Now letâ??s compare revelatory, specifically religious, knowledge that has been brought to us by religious visionaries and priests etc. and is agreed upon by all religions to the same extent as science.

What books contain this knowledge? How much is there?

I see on the one hand, for science, a giant building. But it isnâ??t really a spacious building because it is filled with books like this gem I am holding.

On the other hand, I see a small pile of books such as the New Testament and the Koran. Of course, there are tons of books that elaborate and argue interminably about the content of this little pile of ambiguous religious books but that seem to contain no new revelatory core knowledge (Indeed, we are often told that all we need is in this one book!). These are repetitious and muddled books that disagree with each other even more than the books in the politics section of your bookstore.

Yes, the scientific method has given us a great big mountain of real knowledge about the universe and there is much more to come. We really do know much more than they did in the 15th century.

So maybe I am wrong. Where is the mountain of real knowledge that religion gives us and who really thinks religions agree like core science? (Please don't bother pointing out that scientists disagree about some cutting edge stuff. Thats not the point. I am talking about that imagined library of core stuff that they do largely agree on to the extent that they keep putting it in the university science book without anyone claiming its wrong.

What are the agreed upon religious truths?

Does it ever amount to being to more than being told to be nice and follow this list of restrictions and rituals?

Oh wait they don't even agree on the rituals.

I think the being nice part we figured out on our own.

If you have gotten the sense that I am tired of the old "science is just another religion" nonsense and that I am tired of the polemic exaggeration of the disagreements in science then you are right. Science is a success!

Quality over quantity, Veritas over volume.

[Tarski]

Quality over quantity, Veritas over volume.

I absolutely agree with that. Of course, I guess you know what I think wins on the quality issue.

Besides, if the quantity is actually zero then what?

First prove there's such a thing as a soul, then I'll begin creating one.

LOL

I'd settle for some strong objective evidence. Forget about "proof".

[Son]

I absolutely agree with that. Of course, I guess you know what I think wins on the quality issue.

Besides, if the quantity is actually zero then what?

Then you continue on the path you are on until it leads you to somewhere else.

Seeking is a fascinating tool, it will always lead you somewhere, if the intention is pure and not disrupted by false attitudes, then the seeking always leads to the same place for everyone.

All roads eventually lead back to the one truth.

The difference is the amount of effort and injury incurred while traveling there.

[Uncle Dale]

In Buddhism, for instance, the emphasis is on the realization of one's 'Self' or 'Not Self',

as the case may be -- in terms of the true reality of what one is at an eternal 'level'.

In other words, 'intelligence' or 'intelligences' as called in LDS terms. Buddhism, though,

does not recognize the manifestions of Heavenly Father, Man, Jesus, even Buddha(!) ...

And so we have the classical response to Buddhist formulations, in the Advaita Vedanta of its

theistic opponents -- a centuries old theological debate/dialogue, of which Mormonism seems

to be largely unaware.

Then again, there is no one orthodox formulation of primitive Buddhism, and those who attempt

to progress very far along the path of such intellectualizations quickly encounter paradoxes and

limitations of communication that thwart the effort. The old paradigm being, "the less explanation

the better."

This does not mean that there is no place for reflection upon physics (or metaphysics) in Eastern

thought -- even Zen Buddhists have been known to "reflect" now and then. But that consideration

and evaluation is carried out within the parameters of "maya."

Maya is not precisely "illusion," nor it is a dismissal of physical common consensus reality. The precept

of maya, is rather the realization that we each impose our personal understandings (as well as our

misunderstandings) upon the world about us -- and the realization that even a consensus view of

our combined perceptions (call it physics, or science, if you will) in no way begins to describe the

greater Reality of non-experience of non-self.

In other words, the difference between drawing a picture of an apple on the blackboard and holding

an apple in your hand --- or the difference between holding an apple and tasting the flavor of that

same apple --- or the diffference between tasting that flavor and communicating the taste to others.

Or, at the final level, the difference that lies between knowing about the apple and knowing it.

Those investigators of Buddhism (or the Vedanta, for that matter) who only look on from the outside,

seem prone to pontificate upon these Eastern manifestations as though they know what they entail.

To attempt such a thing through intellectualization, will always miss the point. And to attempt to make

comparsions with Mormonism, based upon that sort of intellectualization, will always result in absurdity.

Uncle Dale

.

[Sethbag]

And yet, for all your condenscening "rightness", your science still has no power to change people's lives. It cannot convince a drunk to stop drinking and regain his life. It cannot convince the adulterer to come to his wife. It cannot convince the abuser to turn his life around. It cannot cause people to strive to be better, to treat each other with kindness and respect.

In the end, all your facts are simply trivia, with no real power at all.

C.I.

Buddhism can do that. Islam can do that. Heck, Alcoholics Anonymous can help the drunk, and a good councilor can help the abuser, if he's willing to listen, and so forth. Are you trying to insinuate that it takes God's one and only true church on earth to help with these things?

[wordzee]

who doesn't really exist in my opinion.

But lets forget that for a minute. Please tell me an instance of when you were "touched" in a "profound" way. Then tell why it was profound.

Tarski, If you will provide me your definition of 'touched' and 'profound', I might be able to provide you an answer.

[Tarski]

non-experience of non-self

How does a self remember the experience of non-self? If no self then exactly who or what is enlightened?

I know this ego loss state but I think if examined closely if must be admitted that the experiencer is still there to have this experience and remember it and say that "I had it (the experience of nonself)".

[Tarski]

Tarski, If you will provide me your definition of 'touched' and 'profound', I might be able to provide you an answer.

Well you can use your own definitions if you just explain what they are.

For me profound things are profound for reasons. There is a difference between profound and the mere intense sensation of profoundness without content.

I am looking for the content. That was profound because [fill in reasons here]. What does one walk away with in terms of new knowledge?

Something that is profound to me might be Einstein's dismissal of absolute space and time and the introduction of the subtle notion of absolute "spacetime" as a unifying concept. It answers so many questions and puzzles and allows us to make sense out of other things. There are lots of implications and lots to say in other words.

[Uncle Dale]

How does a self remember the experience of non-self? If no self then exactly who or what is enlightened?

I know this ego loss state but I thik if examined closely if must be admitted that the experiencer

is still there to have this experience and remember it and say that "I had it".

It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" sort of proposition -- we can experience stages of

ego-diminshment while still in a self-centered, perceptive, reflecting mode. Much that is good

in religion draws upon these sorts of experiences -- and much that is bad, in that "priestcraft"

also relies upon our surrender of self-centeredness in many cases.

But all of that are but as "road-signs" along the way. And the end of the path is not the goal.

Any conscious striving to get to the end of the path is but another form of self-centeredness.

There comes a point in life -- for many of us, I think -- in which the realization you and I are

here grappling with talking about, becomes a life-transformation. I will call it "realization" at that

point, because "experience" involves perception and analysis.

After that transformation, yes, we then call upon our experience and analysis, to try and make

some sense of it all. But then again, that is mainly for help in communication to others.

What more can I say -- shall I describe a black cat in an unlit room at midnight on a moonless night?

UD

[Tarski]

What more can I say -- shall I describe a black cat in an unlit room at midnight on a moonless night?

meow!

What if I cease to exist at all in the same sense that this guy named enitotototyuinocktomushnickerpinki who isn't sitting next to me or anywhere else doesn't exist?

death in the way it is envisioned by atheists. Now thats no-self!!!

Is that a good thing? Is that the same as becoming one with God or something.

I think not. The experience of selflessness is not an absolute thing as you say. It is just a sort of relief from our usual way of being--but we still have a specific brain experiencing something and that brain is mine (sort of by definition). If feels profound, mysterious and free (of self). We are left saying things that sound nonsensical.

[Uncle Dale]

meow!

What if I cease to exist at all in the same sense that this guy named enitotototyuinocktomushnickerpinki who isn't sitting next to me or anywhere else doesn't exist?

death in the way it is envisioned by atheists. Now thats no-self!!!

Is that a good thing? Is that the same as becoming one with God or something.

I think not. The experience of selflessness is not an absolute thing as you say. It is just a sort of relief from our usual way of being--but we still have a specific brain experiencing something and that brain is mine (sort of by definition). If feels profound, mysterious and free (of self). We are left saying things that sound nonsensical.

It is possible to be aware but non-analytical -- it takes some practice, generally; but then again

so does riding a bike, at first.

There is also a faculty of "will" that need not be of "mind."

And one way of expressing the perennial paradox, is that we have already died -- we just haven't

come to terms with the fact, so long as we go about living.

And, at the risk of numerous slings and arrows from my co-religionists, I'll venture to say that

we cannot become "one with God" just as we cannot become godlings -- now or ever.

We become nothing more (nor less) than that which we already are.

Take away your capacity to reflect upon what I've just said, and in the unexpected awareness which

follows, things may begin to come together.

Or, perhaps not....

UD

[Tarski]

Take away your capacity to reflect upon what I've just said, and in the unexpected awareness which

follows, things may begin to come together.

Or, perhaps not....

UD

Humans think and reflect and enjoy. I will have plenty of time to not think when I am dead.

[Son]

Humans think and reflect and enjoy. I will have plenty of time to not think when I am dead.

I predict that is when you will do your most profound and powerful thinking, as well as feeling.

[wordzee]

Well you can use your own definitions if you just explain what they are.

For me profound things are profound for reasons. There is a difference between profound and the mere intense sensation of profoundness without content.

I am looking for the content. That was profound because [fill in reasons here]. What does one walk away with in terms of new knowledge?

Something that is profound to me might be Einstein's dismissal of absolute space and time and the introduction of the subtle notion of absolute "spacetime" as a unifying concept. It answers so many questions and puzzles and allows us to make sense out of other things. There are lots of implications and lots to say in other words.

Hi Tarski,

Thank you.

A 'profound situation' is wonderfully different for every person. For my babies, it was learning the word 'bird'. For my autistic niece, a profound instance was finding horses joyful to her. I could in no way compare my 'profound' experience with anything in Einsteins life. The thought just makes me giggle. My profound experiences are uniquely mine and are sacred. To me, Sacred is divine, of God, a gift. I've had many. And if what you say is true about yourself and see no God nor believe that one exists, then sharing my profound sacred experiences with you would be as pointless as Einstein trying to explain one of his brilliant forthcoming theories to me. It would make no sense and only frustrate both of us. But, in my case, I would try very hard to understand what he said, feeling privileged to sit at his feet, anxious to learn. He may well be very patient with my 'thickheadedness' because of my sincere and respectful approach to him. If I thought your desire to know of my profound and sacred experiences were equally respectful and sincere, I could also share them with you.

Please, do not misunderstand me. I'm not arguing in any way shape or form. I am trying to find a 'logical' way to explain why I'm not going to share my sacred and profound experiences with you at this time. You are obviously very logical and bright.

Thanks.

My original intent was to show that science does not exclude spiritualism or visa-verse. They are one in the same and I'm sure you've read enough to know that some of the greatest minds in history came to the same conclusion.

[Maidservant]

I could claim and believe that my dreams or LSD visions have an external source too. Even if it was external, how would you know. How would it seem different to you if the source was internal?

In science, if one is doing thing properly that kind of problem doesn't come up.

The very fact that I and most scientists would agree would see it as likely that the source is internal hints that there is something missing that makes is so that this type of thing can't count as evidence.

LSD visions, I daresay, do have an external source. Ha ha. Teasing you.

Dreams and LSD visions are chemical and electrical nature. Spirit is not chemical or electrical; "spirit" is a technical word for the type of structure of that (spirit) signal. How I know the spirit is externally sourced is a postulate -- like turning toward an audio signal or turning toward heat and light signals. A lot of spirit is generated and experienced from our own bodies. But the spirit that is generated from God or from another person is external. How I know information that is carried by spirit is external -- the same way I know that the television set is. It's a postulate.

"Rays of the spirit"? Yikes! Could you tell me where those show up on the electromagnetic spectrum? If these rays are physical in nature, they must be observable.

No, sorry I can't tell you where spirit shows up on the electromagnetic spectrum. I don't know if it is or it isn't. Is the electromagnetic spectrum a closed book? (Actually curious about that.)

I do know that the claims of the scriptures are that spirit and other mass/energetic structures and emanations having to do with God's power and presence are tangible/physical and have physical effects. (D&C 6:2).

I agree. They are observable. Observation ALWAYS requires an instrument of observation. Man (children of God) have yet to invent an instrument that will receive spirit signals. There is an instrument that can make those observations however -- it is the human body.

[valkator]

And so we have the classical response to Buddhist formulations, in the Advaita Vedanta of its

theistic opponents -- a centuries old theological debate/dialogue, of which Mormonism seems

to be largely unaware.

Then again, there is no one orthodox formulation of primitive Buddhism, and those who attempt

to progress very far along the path of such intellectualizations quickly encounter paradoxes and

limitations of communication that thwart the effort. The old paradigm being, "the less explanation

the better."

This does not mean that there is no place for reflection upon physics (or metaphysics) in Eastern

thought -- even Zen Buddhists have been known to "reflect" now and then. But that consideration

and evaluation is carried out within the parameters of "maya."

Maya is not precisely "illusion," nor it is a dismissal of physical common consensus reality. The precept

of maya, is rather the realization that we each impose our personal understandings (as well as our

misunderstandings) upon the world about us -- and the realization that even a consensus view of

our combined perceptions (call it physics, or science, if you will) in no way begins to describe the

greater Reality of non-experience of non-self.

In other words, the difference between drawing a picture of an apple on the blackboard and holding

an apple in your hand --- or the difference between holding an apple and tasting the flavor of that

same apple --- or the diffference between tasting that flavor and communicating the taste to others.

Or, at the final level, the difference that lies between knowing about the apple and knowing it.

Those investigators of Buddhism (or the Vedanta, for that matter) who only look on from the outside,

seem prone to pontificate upon these Eastern manifestations as though they know what they entail.

To attempt such a thing through intellectualization, will always miss the point. And to attempt to make

comparsions with Mormonism, based upon that sort of intellectualization, will always result in absurdity.

Uncle Dale

I appreciate the illustrations, and I agree with you that one cannot know something from the outside looking in - imposing an intellectualization on the reality, itself. However, that is precisely what I'm saying Buddhism also does with regards to these same issues with dealing with the Reality, itself. There's really nothing absurd with comparing or linking certain Mormon concepts such as 'intelligence' or 'intelligences' with Buddhist precepts such as 'Non Self or 'Self', as they are speaking to the same thing. The issue you seem to have with the linking is that the mental 'processes' which determine how each is understood within their own contexts do not compare and, therefore, cannot be compared. This is like saying that one who builds a house from the inside-out versus one who builds it from the outside-in are not doing the same thing or even seeing the same things - and cannot relate to each other. We all ARE - and that provides the very foundation for comparison. The criticism given is not a 'classic response' flowing from a mysterious theological dispute that Mormons - or anyone else - is unaware of. It's a reality that always arises when two 'approaches' to the same Reality come together, where critique and dialogue take place to see the commonalities - even if the two represent different 'angles' of perception.

And, at the risk of numerous slings and arrows from my co-religionists, I'll venture to say that

we cannot become "one with God" just as we cannot become godlings -- now or ever.

We become nothing more (nor less) than that which we already are.

Which removes the 'cannot' in the first statement because of what one already is.

[Uncle Dale]

And, at the risk of numerous slings and arrows from my co-religionists, I'll venture to say that

we cannot become "one with God" just as we cannot become godlings -- now or ever.

We become nothing more (nor less) than that which we already are.

Which removes the 'cannot' in the first statement because of what one already is.

If "godlings" are wonderfully progressed beings, living and operating within time-space, then

I suppose my maxim stands, only so far as its first clause..

If "godlings" are transcendant -- not defined by mundane existence -- then perhaps we are

"half-way home" here. That is to say, we already are THAT. However, the problem of multiples

still must be dealt with -- so let's eliminate the "s" ---- better yet, but still not "home free."

For "godling" remains an object of perception (or at least contemplation). So, remove THAT part

as well, and I'm then in perfect agreement with you.

But, let's go back a few steps, to those "wonderfully progressed beings, living and operating

within time-space." Quite likely THAT is what we will become, given time and opportunity. Our

own evolved selves of a billion years from now, somehow finding the means of returning to

good old 2007, would probably be so advanced, in so many ways, as to be indistiguishable from

what we 2007ers think of as "godlings."

THAT much of Mormonism I swallow whole -- though not with the footnote of our being THAT already.

But what all this has to do with Tarski's questions without end, I'm not quite sure.

UD

[[added: -- "The criticism given is not a 'classic response' flowing from a mysterious theological dispute

that Mormons - or anyone else - is unaware of. " ----- Here I was not speaking of a theological dispute

that is in any way mysterious -- only whether or not "God" is to be spoken of in ultimate realizations;

or rather, in any attempted communication of ultimate realizations. Buddhism has the same problem with

any theistic formulations, be they Hindu, Jewish or Christian. It is not so much that there is a dispute

going on, as it is a problem of Buddhists refusing to engage the potential dialogue regarding God.]]

[valkator]

If "godlings" are wonderfully progressed beings, living and operating within time-space, then

I suppose my maxim stands, only so far as its first clause..

If "godlings" are transcendant -- not defined by mundane existence -- then perhaps we are

"half-way home" here. That is to say, we already are THAT. However, the problem of multiples

still must be dealt with -- so let's eliminate the "s" ---- better yet, but still not "home free."

For "godling" remains an object of perception (or at least contemplation). So, remove THAT part

as well, and I'm then in perfect agreement with you

Generally, that is what I was trying to illustrate and am in agreement with - particularly that 'god' and 'godlings' are not defined by mundane existence and they, as objects of perception and defined solidly as such in relation to 'others' who either 'are' or 'are not' in relation to them is missing the boat, so to speak. The 'individual' manifestations and the relationships formed by the observations of the manifestations, to me, is only a conventional 'system' built on an appearance of 'separation'. That there APPEAR to be many observers or perceivers - multiples - doesn't, necessarily have to be problem when the 'relationships' are not between different 'beings', per se ... but different 'perceptual viewpoints' of one 'being' or one 'intelligence'...though I hope you will excuse the language i'm using to describe something that cannot really be categorized.

[Uncle Dale]

... I hope you will excuse the language i'm using to describe something that cannot really

be categorized.

Welcome to the club.

The last time I recall any Latter Day Saint taking the time to listen was back when I gave Sunday

sermons to the bewildered RLDS and the HAD to listen.

Oh well -- time to go chop wood and carry water.

Yer Unk