The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[elguanteloko]

LOL....uummmm, huh? I had to read that, again, very slowly.

I didn't doubt, at first, and then I did, for awhile...but, now, I don't.

Are you asking how we can prove it to someone else, or how we know, ourselves, that it is from God? I don't think we can prove subjective experiences to others. They pretty much have to take our word for it...or not.

I'm not asking you to explain "subjective experiences". I'm asking you to explain how you determine those experiences were caused by a superpowerful celestial, corporeal, conscious being which we normally call God. I don't doubt your experiences but I doubt the explanation you give to why they occur.

[elguanteloko]

Perhaps in your experience there isn't. I am no judge of that.

However, at the risk of personalizing it, let me give a superficial telling of a couple of personal revelations I received. I shall not give details, as I hold them too sacred to recount in this forum, but the gist of the matter is that when I received my patriarchal blessing a certain thing was promised to me, an item of knowledge, sometime in the future. A few years later, when I was on my mission I decided to claim this thing which had been promised to me, and I asked Father in many prayers over the course of a number of nights and days to grant it to me. At length I received what I asked for. It did not come in quite the manner I expected, nor was it quite in content what I expected, but upon reflection it was exactly what I needed. So I went on from there.

I wasn't asking for some kind of doctrinal knowledge beyond that with which we have been blessed, but what my blessing promised, which had to do with me and my life and mission in this life. No need to consult scriptures to make sure I wasn't deceived; in fact it was completely congruent with every gospel truth I had ever learned, and quite personalized.

Many years after my mission I received another but very unexpected personal revelation, kind of "over the transom", as it were, as I had not asked for anything, and it told me one particular thing would come to pass, and in the course of time it did. Interestingly, it only just occurred to me that this event that came to pass was part and parcel of the first revelation I mentioned.

This second revelation, combined with the one I mentioned above, gave me an overwhelming sense that God knows who I am, and has specific genuine expectations of me. And this is just one more point to these two experiences, which remain most precious to me.

Like I said, perhaps in your experience personal revelation hasn't had much of a point, but for me personal revelation has a definite point.

And thanks, elguanteloko, for the bringing this subject up. An unexpected opportunity to reflect upon these things and to express my gratitude to the Lord for all that He has done for me.

Stargazer, are you seriously going to tell me that the best explanation you can come up with for those events is God? Brainstorm ideas on possible explanations and stand back for a while and tell me God is the most likely explanation.

[jo1952]

Let's say I receive a revelation that my son is going to have a car accident and I, somehow, manage to save him thanks to the revelation. My question to you is, could Satan have worked a miracle and given me this information for some purpose I know not of just yet? We know from scriptures that Satan will work miracles in the last days. Do you accept this?

I do accept that satan will work miracles in the last days. I'm thinking that these miracles, because they will be the same types as performed by Jesus and the Apostles, will be visible miracles, rather than the unseen personal revelations being discussed up to this point on your thread. Even though he will be performing physical miracles, he still is not the spirit who has been given the ability to witness for Jesus Christ; i.e., Spirit to spirit. In fact, the anti-christ will be claiming to BE God. Therefore, in order to NOT be fooled, it is imperative that we learn NOW how to discern a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost vs a physical false witness by the adversary.

Now, you have brought to mind an interesting question. In the last days, when healing miracles are being performed, we can see that someone being healed is obviously a good thing. However, the purpose and intent which satan has in mind behind performing such a miracle is not for the purpose of supporting God. Rather, it will be for the purpose of promoting himself and leading people away from God. So, does a loving parent walk away from the opportunity of having a sick child healed, just in case the "being" performing the miracle is satan? Let us look at scripture for some direction:

Mark 9:38-40

38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

In whose name will satan be performing miracles? I don't think he will doing them in the name of Jesus Christ. He is not going to want to give Christ any credit. Since we do not know what this performing of miracles is going to look like, let us consider the following:

Scenario 1: Someone offers to cure your loved one, and does so, but does not use the name of Jesus Christ in the process. Do you have an obligation to give allegiance to the person who cured your loved one? I say no. I say, give thanks to Heavenly Father who has given this power of performing miracles to satan.

Scenario 2: Someone offers to cure your loved one, but says he will only do so if you give allegiance to satan. Therefore, in order to have your loved one cured, you would be required to take upon yourself the mark of satan. If this is how the terms of the miracle are presented to you, I would say do not accept them.

We should also remember that even when people saw Christ performing miracles, this was not necessarily enough for them to believe in Christ. Therefore, I would think that just because people will see satan performing miracles, they will not necessarily believe that he is god. It was the witness of the Holy Ghost who convinced those who saw Jesus performing miracles that Jesus is the Christ because they chose to believe in Him.

I think one of the many reasons that Father is still going to have people preaching the Gospel message during the last days is to help keep them from being fooled. Thus, people will be able to choose to believe in Christ (at which time they will receive the witness of the Holy Ghost), or choose not to believe in Christ (at which time they will be fodder for satan's lies). If satan or the anti-christ are claiming that it is their power they are using to perform miracles, and are not giving the credit and glory to Heavenly Father (the way Jesus ALWAYS did), or are not performing them in the name of Jesus Christ, and/or are asking for you to give them allegiance, then we should beware. Those who have accepted Jesus Christ will be able to recognize these "signs" and will only give allegiance, credit, and glory to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Those who have not yet accepted Jesus Christ will not be able to see the differences and are in danger of taking upon themselves the mark of satan should they agree to give him allegiance.

Just some thoughts.

jo

[Hamba Tuhan]

I didn't phrase that correctly. Let me try again. How do YOU know those "revelations" are from God or are revelations at all?

Let's speak metaphorically again, then.

1. If you were praying one night, and then you thought an angel came into your room and told you about an ancient buried record you'd never before imagined, what would you conclude?

2. If, as part of the experience, you thought you were shown in a vision from the angel the exact spot where the record had been buried, what would you do?

3. Assuming a particular answer to question 2, if you actually went to the hillside and found the very spot you remembered seeing, what would you conclude/do?

4. Assuming particular answers to question 3, if you pried up the rock and saw an actual record of sorts engraven on metal plates, what would you conclude about the source of the original experience?

[elguanteloko]

Let's speak metaphorically again, then.

1. If you were praying one night, and then you thought an angel came into your room and told you about an ancient buried record you'd never before imagined, what would you conclude?

I would conclude that something VERY strange has just happened. More than likely, though, I would think there was something wrong with my brain... something quite fun!

2. If, as part of the experience, you thought you were shown in a vision from the angel the exact spot where the record had been buried, what would you do?

If it isn't too far away I would go just to see what's up. I've done that before (from scenes in dreams, that is, not visions).

3. Assuming a particular answer to question 2, if you actually went to the hillside and found the very spot you remembered seeing, what would you conclude/do?

Deja vu?

4. Assuming particular answers to question 3, if you pried up the rock and saw an actual record of sorts engraven on metal plates, what would you conclude about the source of the original experience?

Someone is playing a prank on me and I would try and find that out. As crazy as you think my explanations sound, supernatural ones sound even crazier and with much less thought put into finding out what really is happening. Notice, though, I'm NOT saying miracles don't occur. All I'm saying is that your explanation isn't the best one and I think you can easily see why that is the case. What's more likely: someone is playing a prank on me of some sort or an actual megapowerful being can cross walls and communicate with me to tell me about some ancient book? I'm not being overtly skeptic here and I think you can see my point quite rightly.

[elguanteloko]

In whose name will satan be performing miracles? I don't think he will doing them in the name of Jesus Christ. He is not going to want to give Christ any credit.

Matthew 7:22-23 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

[Robert F. Smith]

We know that Satan can deceive us into thinking something was a revelation when it wasn't.

We know God will not command us about everything we have to do.

We know we will make mistakes.

If we receive a revelation and it clearly goes against the scriptures then it isn't from God.

Not everything is in the scriptures (what job you should take, what to make legal or illegal, etc).

Now, let's say you pray and you think you received a revelation. If it clearly goes against the scriptures then you know it isn't from God. However, you could be mistaken when interpreting the scriptures or when interpreting the revelation because of Satan. Satan may be the one deceiving you into thinking it is a revelation from God when it isn't in the first place. You know also that it could be just your mind since God will NOT admonish you in everything you have to do or should do. It seems that at the end of the day you have no sure source but you have to trust in the Lord (have faith).

Then, of what use is "personal revelation"?

You titled and predefined this forum as "The Uselessness of Personal Revelation: Why It Doesn't Matter, But Faith Does,"

Given those assumptions, I'm not sure that any headway is possible, despite the willingness of your respondents to bear their testimonies, suggest some Faustian bargains, and in some cases to hector you.

I would have preferred a more open-ended question. Had that been the case I could have asked whether you might consider the broad cultural context in which personal revelatory experiences are known or supposed to have taken place, and I could even have broadened the concept under examination to include "inspiration." Revelation is, after all (strictly speaking), quite rare -- even among Mormons. We might have considered a phenomenological examination of inspiration throughout all times and all places.

We would have to admit up front that we are prisoners of our senses as per David Hume, and that reality is often not consonant with our personal impressions as per modern physics. Thus, despite our conceit that we have reasoning powers and reflective ability far beyond that of the ducks and geese who eat, reproduce, and migrate with the seasons purely by instinct, do we ever really "know" anything for certain? Are we really so far above other members of the animal kingdom?

Indeed, if we are to experience inspiration, which mode is most effective and "real"? Are we any better off finding inspiration in singing hymns in church, or participating in sacramental liturgy (in or outside the temple), or engaging in fervent prayer, than the bhakti yogi, or whirling dervish, or Hasidic Jew -- each dancing in holy ecstasy?

And what are the limits of inspiration or revelation? Must it be dialogic, or merely confirmatory through a physical sign within the body? Is ineffable assurance enough? Are so-called "miracles" included, as for example when the late Gene England laid his hands on his broken down 1974 Chevrolet to bless it so that it would run once more? Richard Bushman has publicly discussed his experience as a Patriarch in answer to a question about how patriarchal blessings are delivered by saying simply "It just comes." Is it enough that one is personally convinced of the authenticity of the experience? Since such personal revelation or inspiration is not transferrable, what difference would it make whether anyone else believed it?

We could consult Holy Writ on the phenomenon, asking whether Saul was among the prophets (I Sam 10:5-12)? And whether Saul was correct to seek revelation via a medium at En Dor (I Sam 28:6-20)? Whole books have been written on the subject, and theological dictionaries look at it from every possible angle. They examine how revelation was given in ancient Israel, Canaan, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome, and they parse the words used in a variety of languages to describe it.

In the end, how do any of us know whether our experience with inspiration or revelation is any more real than, say, that of the Buddha under the Bodhi Tree? How do we know that we know? This is the dilemma which a people of faith must face. For they can only acquire inspiration on their own, and then testify (if they are so moved) of it to others -- who can only believe it if they themselves have a personal witness of the Spirit that it is authentic. A very private and circular procedure at best.

[Jeff K.]

A seeing man bears his testimony to a blind man that he knows what yellow looks like. "Its a beautiful color" he testifies. "It brightens my day".

"Can you describe it to me?" asks the blind man.

"Sadly no" says the seeing man. It is something you must experience to completely understand.

"Then it can't be true. You are misled, and there is no yellow" says the blind man.

[Jeff K.]

In one sense Eguanteloko is correct. Personal revelation by itself can possibly be misleading because we as fallible humans at times prefer to be mislead than led. However Dalin Oaks spoke to that issue in his talk Two Lines of Communication in October of 2010.

In the personal line we pray directly to our Heavenly Father, and He answers us by the channels He has established, without any mortal intermediary. We pray to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ, and He answers us through His Holy Spirit and in other ways. The mission of the Holy Ghost is to testify of the Father and the Son (see John 15:26; 2 Nephi 31:18; 3 Nephi 28:11), to guide us into truth (see John 14:26; 16:13), and to show us all things we should do (see 2 Nephi 32:5). This personal line of communication with our Heavenly Father through His Holy Spirit is the source of our testimony of truth, of our knowledge, and of our personal guidance from a loving Heavenly Father. It is an essential feature of His marvelous gospel plan, which allows each one of His children to receive a personal witness of its truth.

Therein lies the reasoning and meaning of personal lines of communication with God.

On this personal line of communication with the Lord, our belief and practice is similar to that of those Christians who insist that human mediators between God and man are unnecessary because all have direct access to God under the principle Martin Luther espoused that is now known as “the priesthood of all believers.”

And it is a common view held by most of Christianity (and other religions).

Now the blind man would say that it hasn't happened to him.

And that follows a couple of caveats.

if we are disobedient to or out of harmony with the priesthood line. The Lord has declared that “the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness” (D&C 121:36). Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.

I note the word common for the use of the blind.

The second line is the priesthood line.

Because of what He accomplished by His atoning sacrifice, Jesus Christ has the power to prescribe the conditions we must fulfill to qualify for the blessings of His Atonement. That is why we have commandments and ordinances. That is why we make covenants. That is how we qualify for the promised blessings. They all come through the mercy and grace of the Holy One of Israel, “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23).

In other words Christ has the right to organize the priesthood line as He see's fit.

The priesthood line is the channel by which God has spoken to His children through the scriptures in times past. And it is this line through which He currently speaks through the teachings and counsel of living prophets and apostles and other inspired leaders. This is the way we receive the required ordinances. This is the way we receive calls to service in His Church. His Church is the way and His priesthood is the power through which we are privileged to participate in those cooperative activities that are essential to accomplishing the Lord’s work. These include preaching the gospel, building temples and chapels, and helping the poor.

In respect to this priesthood line, our belief and practice is similar to the insistence of some Christians that authoritative ordinances (sacraments) are essential and must be performed by one authorized and empowered by Jesus Christ (see John 15:16).

Scripturally we know that a priesthood line was used to prepare and write the scriptures in the past.

So why the need for a priesthood line (whether Christ authorizes or organizes it or not)?

Some members or former members of our church fail to recognize the importance of the priesthood line. They underestimate the importance of the Church and its leaders and its programs. Relying entirely on the personal line, they go their own way, purporting to define doctrine and to direct competing organizations contrary to the teachings of prophet-leaders. In this they mirror the modern hostility to what is disparagingly called “organized religion.” Those who reject the need for organized religion reject the work of the Master, who established His Church and its officers in the meridian of time and who reestablished them in modern times.

Organized religion, established by divine authority, is essential, as the Apostle Paul taught:

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12–13).

We should all remember the Lord’s declaration in modern revelation that the voice of the Lord’s servants is the voice of the Lord (see D&C 1:38; 21:5; 68:4).

And in harmony

First, the priesthood line does not supersede the need for the personal line. We all need a personal testimony of truth. As our faith develops, we necessarily rely on the words and faith of others, like our parents, teachers, or priesthood leaders (see D&C 46:14).

However relying too much on others....

if we are solely dependent on one particular priesthood leader or teacher for our personal testimony of the truth instead of getting that testimony through the personal line, we will be forever vulnerable to disillusionment by the action of that person.

Everytime someone brings up how a bishop or a stake president did so and so to who and whom, I think of this portion of the talk.

like the personal line, the priesthood line cannot function fully and properly in our behalf unless we are worthy and obedient. Many scriptures teach that if we persist in serious violations of the commandments of God, we are “cut off from his presence” (Alma 38:1). When that happens, the Lord and His servants are seriously inhibited in giving us spiritual help and we cannot obtain it for ourselves.

Both lines are necessary. Oaks goes on to illustrate how they were used in the church at various times.

When Elguanteloko speaks of the uselessness of personal revelation he in effect states he cannot see the color yellow, and more to the point, does not understand how the color yellow works. He isolates one small aspect and shows it as incomplete complaining that "it is useless and doesn't work". In fact it does work, as Elder Oaks illustrated. And it works well. Until he decides to open his eyes he will remain somewhat limited because to him yellow is useless, but only because he doesn't want to see it.

[Deborah]

I am going to assert that Satan does not give "revelation." Revelation per LDS.org is

...communication from God to His children. This guidance comes through various channels according to the needs and circumstances of individuals, families, and the Church as a whole. When the Lord reveals His will to the Church, He speaks through His prophet. Prophets are the only people who can receive revelation for the Church, but they are not the only people who can receive revelation. According to our faithfulness, we can receive revelation to help us with our specific personal needs, responsibilities, and questions and to help us strengthen our testimony.

Satan can influence one by playing on his intellect or vanity or desire to be something more than he is. It is then that one needs revelation to decide if that person is being influenced by God or Satan. Satan can imitate light but he is not light. He can imitate miracles but when doing so it is not for edification but for show.

I think if we aren't sure whether something is for God or Satan we need to look into ourselves and see what our own motives are. Yes we can be deceived but it is self-deceit. As one becomes used to listening to the promptings of the spirit, it becomes easier to discern.

[Robert F. Smith]

I just found Elguanteloko in another forum on this board saying this, which somewhat clarifies his position here:

"Going with the best explanation is not faith. Going with what you know is not the best explanation is faith."

[LeSellers]

... I doubt ...

And therein lies your problem.

Lehi

[Hamba Tuhan]

What's more likely: someone is playing a prank on me of some sort or an actual megapowerful being can cross walls and communicate with me to tell me about some ancient book? I'm not being overtly skeptic here and I think you can see my point quite rightly.

You've just reminded me of an experience I had one evening when I was working in America. A co-worker and I had ended up at a cheap Mexican place after working overtime, and we got talking about faith. Her husband was a formerly lapsed Church member who had returned 'with vengeance,' and both of her children had chosen to be baptised as well. All three of them desperately wanted the mum to join them at Church, but she just didn't believe any of it. They kept telling she needed to have faith, but that just sounded like a lame excuse to her. If there really were a God, she claimed, then he'd be willing to make things easy for her and just give her something obvious she could accept.

I asked her to give me an example. She said it would help if, for example, He would show Himself to her and tell her that 'Mormonism' was the right way. I thought about this and then felt inspired to ask her a question. I asked her to assume for a moment that, on her way to her car that night, God did descend in a pillar of light and tell her that He was real and wanted her to become a Church member. Then I asked her how far down the road she would get before she'd convinced herself it hadn't actually happened. She considered the question and then answered honestly that she wouldn't make it home before having done so.

I then pointed out that the one thing she'd just asked for as evidence was something she was still prepared to discount. She agreed. I then asked her if there really was anything God could do to convince her otherwise, and she admitted that there wasn't. No wonder He didn't even try. Her faith in her preferred explanations was unshakable.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I just found Elguanteloko in another forum on this board saying this, which somewhat clarifies his position here:

"Going with the best explanation is not faith. Going with what you know is not the best explanation is faith."

Nonsense. Faith translates to both 'trust' and 'loyalty.' When I was little and my father said to me, 'Jump, and I'll catch you,' faith was what empowered me to jump. Each time he caught me, I knew something very real about my dad. Pretending that my dad wasn't really catching me would have been madness, not faith.

[Mars]

If you were asked by your church leaders to do something that offended your sensibilities in every way, how would you determine whether or not it was of God?

If or when that happens, you won't be a part of the decision making process.

If you think there's something inherently wrong with the way Latter-day Saints doctrinally or culturally pursue truth, by all means, go start a new thread or comment on the subject here as it's relevant.

In the meantime, for style points, you *could* say something like "Oh, right, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have tried to speak for you."

[mfbukowski]

The existence of a corporeal God is proposed by Mormons to be a fact about reality. That God could have or could have not given information to someone. How are those very elementary proposition for Mormons not facts?

When you show me how I am a logical positivist, I will answer. Until then, it is a waste of time.

[Stargazer]

Stargazer, are you seriously going to tell me that the best explanation you can come up with for those events is God? Brainstorm ideas on possible explanations and stand back for a while and tell me God is the most likely explanation.

If I were to give you all the details of the experience, perhaps you would understand how I can be completely convinced these came from God and were not brainstorms. And perhaps not. I can tell the difference, though I cannot easily tell you precisely how. It was partly due to the manner and "feel" of the delivery, and partly because of the content. For example, if you were to visit me in my house and tell me that Moby **** had not actually been written by Melville, but by another American of the same name, then I would be able to tell anyone who wanted to know that "Elguanteloko told me that....", and the information, being totally unexpected in content, well, was memorable. I am not saying I had a visitation by any heavenly messenger (in the sense that there was a perceptible being in my presence), because I didn't, but the manner of delivery was unlike anything else I have ever received in any venue, either before or since. It was quite unique. And the nature of the information was in a certain sense prosaic, but completely practical and totally sensible. The second experience was rather like a sudden intuition, but I've had those and this wasn't an intuition. It was an answer to a rhetorical question I had posed to another person sitting beside me in an automobile. It was directed at me, and it simultaneous gave me the answer to the question and revealed something that would shortly come to pass, which in due course did occur. It was quite astonishing at the time, let me tell you.

As far as brainstorms are concerned, I know the difference between the brainstorm and revelation. For example, yesterday evening as I was visiting Barnes and Noble, casting about for ideas on what kind of Windows Phone 7 app I should think about developing next, well, I had a brainstorm and two ideas popped out. I am reasonably certain they came from me. And they are pretty good ideas, if I do say so myself!

I don't know you personally, but from the form of the doubts you have expressed on this board in the past, you will simply disbelieve me. And while you may grant that I think I had an actual revelation from God, you will most likely be very convinced that I am delusional about the source of what I have described. I'm OK with it. I accept the inevitability.

Your problem, elguanteloko, is that you expect your sense of "fairness" to be the guiding light of the universe and for God, if He exists, to conform to it. Absent this, you will not believe, but in my observation, the Universe does not need my or your permission to exist, and neither does God need it. He is the ultimate reality, and accept it or not, in the end it will not matter.

[mfbukowski]

What of the LDS truth claims?

I adhere to a Pragmatist theory of truth ala John Dewey and William James, and CS Peirce.

I suggest you read William James "Varieties of Religious Experience"; on this theory of truth if a proposition about religious belief works in your life, it is "true". Here is a link to the full text in various formats including just a plain text file.

You might also want to go here and read about Process Theism which is very related to this entire issue.

Another way of saying it, is that it all depends on your definition of "truth" and exactly what kind of "claims" are being proposed.

The existence of God cannot be scientifically verified, obviously, which means that some other sense of "truth" must be being used in such truth claims. I believe that the meaning of such truth claims approximate something like "I have found the belief in God to be efficacious in my life", or "give meaning to my life" or some other similar sort of subjective statement about the mental attitude of the speaker.

That is essentially the way William James and other Pragmatists would see it.

That's the very short answer, and I don't have much time to do more right now, but if it interests you, I have given you ample references to research it further.

[Mordecai]

Believe what you want, then.

I will. Of course, what I want to believe are things that make sense. I believe that people receive revelation, and that said revelation comes from God.

[mfbukowski]

A seeing man bears his testimony to a blind man that he knows what yellow looks like. "Its a beautiful color" he testifies. "It brightens my day".

"Can you describe it to me?" asks the blind man.

"Sadly no" says the seeing man. It is something you must experience to completely understand.

"Then it can't be true. You are misled, and there is no yellow" says the blind man.

[jo1952]

Matthew 7:22-23 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Which was part of my point. Satan will NOT be performing miracles in the name of Jesus Christ. And, satan's buddy, the anti-christ is going to be claiming that he is god - not claiming he is the Son of God. Nor will they be giving credit and glory to the Father like Jesus always did.

The passage you have referenced is not associated with satan. It is meant for believers who think they have been serving Christ, but who have been serving themselves instead. IOW, their beliefs and the services they performed were not a result of actually knowing Christ. They will be the ones who have not been personally led by a relationship with God through the Holy Ghost; but rather have been led by man. Their feet will be planted firmly in the world, and their spirituality will be barren.

jo

[citizen28]

If or when that happens, you won't be a part of the decision making process.

If you think there's something inherently wrong with the way Latter-day Saints doctrinally or culturally pursue truth, by all means, go start a new thread or comment on the subject here as it's relevant.

In the meantime, for style points, you *could* say something like "Oh, right, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have tried to speak for you."

It's not difficult to speak for the bulk of the saints when their beliefs are readily accessible at lds.org, but I appreciate that there are a few free-thinkers among them.

[citizen28]

I adhere to a Pragmatist theory of truth ala John Dewey and William James, and CS Peirce.

I suggest you read William James "Varieties of Religious Experience"; on this theory of truth if a proposition about religious belief works in your life, it is "true". Here is a link to the full text in various formats including just a plain text file.

You might also want to go here and read about Process Theism which is very related to this entire issue.

Another way of saying it, is that it all depends on your definition of "truth" and exactly what kind of "claims" are being proposed.

The existence of God cannot be scientifically verified, obviously, which means that some other sense of "truth" must be being used in such truth claims. I believe that the meaning of such truth claims approximate something like "I have found the belief in God to be efficacious in my life", or "give meaning to my life" or some other similar sort of subjective statement about the mental attitude of the speaker.

That is essentially the way William James and other Pragmatists would see it.

That's the very short answer, and I don't have much time to do more right now, but if it interests you, I have given you ample references to research it further.

I think that's a very sensible approach, and I sincerely wish more LDS saw it the way you do. Thanks for sharing.

[SilverKnight]

I think that's a very sensible approach, and I sincerely wish more LDS saw it the way you do.

Most LDS do see it that way - they believe in mormonism because it works and produces good things.

[mfbukowski]

Most LDS do see it that way - they believe in mormonism because it works and produces good things.

You can see that from at least 3 or 4 posters I can name off the top of my head on this very thread- without actually re-reading anything: SilverKnight, HiJolly, and me have all expressed similar sentiments- Lehi also I believe, and maybe others I am not remembering at the moment.

In fact that view is pretty mainstream, imo. Of course there are always a few who don't get it and think that these questions are about scientific "facts" and persist in asking inane questions about objective knowledge about the existence of God, supposing that only things observable to science are "real", and then the thread goes on and on until everyone gets bored and quits trying to convince them that they are off base.

Sound familiar? That is what my crystal ball predicts for this thread. Most of us have been over this same question so many times with the same people- I am just here to point the way for the newbies and people with genuine questions- I really don't want to argue with the same people about the same arguments we have been having for years- literally.

There isn't much point to it.