What Is The "Truth"?

[Ahab]

Hmmmmmm. If "reality" can be true than it can be false also, right?

Nope, but some people can think something is real or true when it really isn't.

Describe "false reality" as opposed to a "false statement about reality".

You're introducing a term that I haven't used and then asking me to define it? Heh, it's your term. YOU define it.

I was talking about how things are either real (or true) or not real (not true).

Can't do it, because there is no such thing.

Then why did you come up with the term?

"Truth" is about statements which are true or false- justified beliefs or unjustified beliefs.

Not what I was saying. I was saying statements are either true or false, and something is either reality or it isn't.

What is "false reality" ? A hallucination? So a hallucination is "real"- it's just false reality?? Can you see the problems there?

Yes, I see the problem here.

How many "things" are there in "false reality"? Butterflies that swim? People 87 feet tall? Polkadot lions that eat only orange Panda bears?

If there is no "false reality" there is no "true reality" either. Truth and falsity are not about reality but about statements about what we experience.

Please let me know when you understand what I was saying.

Exactly how many "false things" ARE "there"? How many thousand can you imagine?

Try asking me how many things there are which people think exist which don't really exist.

Or better yet, try asking me how many false concepts there are about things which truly exist.

Good one! You see how silly it is?

Do I see how silly WHAT is?

I wish I could take credit for them- but they are not tricks- just commonly accepted understandings of truth and falsity that do not involve correspondence to a world we cannot speak about. If we can speak about it- it is something we have experienced- but we cannot speak about what we have not experienced.

Haven't you ever met people who say they experienced some things which you know do not really exist?

Pink elephants that run under a chair when somebody pulls their finger? Polka dots on walls when someone has been drinking a lot of something other than water? Mirages? A REAL Star Wars universe?

A God of the Bible with no body of flesh and bone who is supposedly 3 persons all wrapped up together as 1?

I've got to go now. There are other things for me to do in this world.

[LeSellers]

These are more examples of people like us, besides Joseph, having direct experience of God

Not least of whom are Adam who walked with God in Eden and heard His voice afterward, Abraham who entertianed Him before Gommorah, Jacob/Israel who wrestled with Him, Moses who saw Him face-to-face, Isaiah who saw Him on His throne. The biblical list extends well beyond these.

We have Lorenzo Snow's memorable encounter in the Salt Lake Temple hallway, and a host of others in modern times, too.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

I would assume that God knows the absolute reality. On the more earthly side. Reality is just an agreement between rational people. IE; When I say the color "Green" every single one of us sees a slightly different color of green, but we don't see the color red.

[LeSellers]

.

Edited August 19, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

.

Edited August 19, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ahab]

The point I am trying to make is that the experience of God we can have is just as "true" - yes, it is subjective, but true nevertheless- as any experience we have of anything.

Oh! So THAT's the point you're trying to make. Now what you've been saying all makes some more sense, somehow, even though some of your points were really "out there".

Yes, when we have an experience with God, directly, we are having an experience with a real (or true) being who really (or truly) exists both here and out there wherever he is as he somehow communicates with us, directly. Sometimes he is really (or truly) with us, as when he was with Joseph Smith in the grove, and sometimes he is communicating with us from some other specific place other than the place where we are, as when he communicates his thoughts to us such as through Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost or one or more of his angels (messengers), but in each and every case where we are really (or truly) having communication with God, our communication with him is just as real (or true) as it is with anyone else we communicate with. He's a person, like us... or more exactly we are persons like him... and he is just as real (or true) in reality as any of us are. To think he doesn't exist in some form is to not realize what is true (or reality).

We know subjectively if we are hungry or tired or thirsty or in love etc- and we can also know that God has spoken to us the same way. But we also experience chairs and tables and computers on desks directly as well. They are not hidden in a world "out there" that somehow magically "corresponds" to our experiences- our experiences ARE those objects.

The term "out there" can be used to refer to some place other than where we are, you know. I am over here in NW Oregon, and our Father is somewhere "out there" on some other planet... or at least he is when he is not here.

Those experiences are not "subjective" because we can agree between us that yes indeed, the computer is on the desk. The fact that the two or 20 of us agree on that "fact" is what makes it "objective"- YET EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY EXPERIENCE IT SUBJECTIVELY

Not quite. It's not "objective" because a bunch of people agree on a certain point. It's "objective" because it's an "object" that exists in reality, whether or not any of us experience it subjectively.

We are subjects which are also objects, and there are other subjects and objects both here and "out there" away from where we are.

If you put "reality" into some realm which we do not experience directly, we do not experience anything directly including God.

There is a part of reality which we do not experience now, though. Heaven, for example, is a place in reality, even though not all of us are in every part of heaven, just as the entire universe is a place in reality with some parts of it which are way "out there" and beyond our ability to experience right now.

For those of us who have experienced him, we know there can be no doubt about what we have experienced. Experience is all we have.

Yes, but there are other experiences which we or some other people have yet to experience, even though those experiences are available in reality.

Do I doubt that my wife exists? Does she "correspond" to something "out there" that I cannot really know exists? To me, that is just crazy talk, as is all of this stuff about "correspondence".

Stretch your brain a little more, mski. She does "correspond" to something "out there" by being a daughter of our Father in heaven who is "out there" away from where we are... even though we can also experience him here.

Please try to choose your words more carefully.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Ahab

[seriously honestly]

When you say or infer that something is "true", what do you actually mean?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Truth is that which corresponds with realtiy, "And Christ himself is that reality" (Col 2:17 NLT).

[Mudcat]

Joseph's experiences do not lie outside the bounds of our own- their boundaries are of our creation depending on our lack of faith and righteousness. In fact we are encouraged to seek such experiences.

Originally I saw a bit of a paradox between accepting your own experiences vs. accepting the experiences of others (JS for one). But if I am reading you right, the HS through revelation serves a role to help bridge that gap. Have I got that right?

That's the entire point and contrast. Mormonism is based on personal revelation and personal experience of God himself. No such experience, no testimony. God is ontologically one of us- infinitely above, but nevertheless, fundamentally one of us. We experience him directly, though only partially in this life- yet we can in principle know him and become like him, even as his son knows him (John 17). We can and do have spiritual experiences including visions like Joseph- indeed it is said for those who get that far, that they will "see my face and know that I am"

Protestantism is based on the Bible, and as I understand it, can be summarized in the phrase "no private interpretation". All of revelation is given in the Bible once and forever- there is no need for personal revelation.

Don't misread this Bukowski, I am not offended at all, but that is quite a load of poppycock you've dropped off in the last two sentences. It's certainly an incorrect position on Protestantism.

I think most Protestants would agree with me that salvation is dependent on personal revelation to the believer by the Holy Spirit of the reality of Christ. We certainly don't dismiss it, it is a part of our belief... in fact I would say that personal revelation is the cause of our belief, in some respect.

As to the "no private interpretation", I think most protestants would say that God reveals individual revelation to each believer, though the Bible in tandem with the Spirit would be the chief mode for such. We believe the Holy Spirt opens the Scriptures up to us and reveals to us the understanding of them in his own time.

However, you may be referring to the bit in Peter about "private interpretation", though. That verse has more to do with Peter assuring that the prophets were not simply doling out their interpretation of things instead of it being given by God in a more direct fashion.

THAT is the difference, as I understand it. I do not pretend to be an expert however on Protestant, especially Evangelical theology. And clearly the influence of Neoplatonism remains; God is seen as unchanging - the word "perfect" indeed means unchanging. We are created creatures not even ontologically close to God. We cannot experience him directly. Our destiny is to praise him as inferiors forever.

Bold mine, hopefully you will realize that the difference you are noting is incorrect.

I would agree that God does not change.

I would disagree that we aren't ontologically close. Through faith, we are his children.

I would disagree that we can not experience him directly. If the Spirit is in us and reveals things to us, then it would be fair to say that this is experiencing God.

As to the last bit, this seems more of a critical observation on your part and a slanted one IMO.

I certainly do believe God is eternally praise worthy. Do you not? Do LDS believe that they will attain a point in which the praiseworthiness of God will be dismissed as irrelevant?

I would agree that God will always be greater than my own individuality. In that sense, I am inferior and will continue to be so. However, this is simply comparing God to me, by doing so I will always come up short.

As I see it, though, it isn't an apple and oranges type scenario IMO. It is my belief that I am a part of God's plan, a joint-heir with Christ through Christ, I am His child.. and this has meaning. Though I don't ever believe I will become God, like LDS think towards exaltation. I do think through Christ, one day I will become the best Mudcat that there can be. I think that is what God wants and wills, and in that respect, I don't imagine I can associate the word "inferior" with God's will and my part within it.

In Mormonism, he is our Father and we can become like him.

I certainly recognize God as my Father and me as his child. I am very excited about the hereafter and don't claim to have as much in the way of specific knowledge as LDS assert from their beliefs. But as I understand Scripture there is and will be only one God.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Mudcat

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

If we are to become perfect, and one like God and Jesus are, and the Bible certainly says that. What I don't see is this artifical distinction between us and the Gods

[Mudcat]

Mudcat:

If we are to become perfect, and one like God and Jesus are, and the Bible certainly says that. What I don't see is this artifical distinction between us and the Gods

No artificial distinction I don't think. Just no "s", bold mine, either.

[Ahab]

I certainly recognize God as my Father and me as his child. I am very excited about the hereafter and don't claim all to have as much in the way of specific knowledge as LDS assert from their beliefs. But as I understand Scripture there is and will be only one God.

Here we go back to the very basics of doctrine concerning both who and what God is.

When you say there is and will only be one God, I agree with you, but when using the word God in that sense I'm talking about a particular kind of being that exists as individual persons with each person being that one true God.

I suspect you're probably thinking of something a little different, as I once did as a Protestant, but I still think we both agree more than you realize.

I hope we both will eventually become one with our Father, someday.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

Then how do you interpret John 17?

[Ahab]

No artificial distinction I don't think. Just no "s", bold mine, either.

It would be nice if everybody used the politically correct phrase "persons who are God" instead of just saying "Gods", wouldn't it.

Some people just don't care too much for politics, though, and they would rather see you try to expand your mind to understand what they really mean.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

I personally don't see much of a difference.

Ps. Or maybe it is just a distinction without a difference.

Edited August 19, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Mudcat]

Here we go back to the very basics of doctrine concerning both who and what God is.

When you say there is and will only be one God, I agree with you, but when using the word God in that sense I'm talking about a particular kind of being that exists as individual persons with each person being that one true God.

I suspect you're probably thinking of something a little different, as I once did as a Protestant, but I still think we both agree more than you realize.

Bold mine. I think if a Trinitarian and LDS can get past a discussion of the differences in their views, I think most would be surprised at what they do actually agree on.

I hope we both will eventually become one with our Father, someday.

I do too.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat:

Then how do you interpret John 17?

I am not sure that I follow...

I mean I don't see anything in 17 establishing some sort of plurality to God. I suppose if chpt. 17 was all there was to John I might see room for that, but considering the context of John 1, I don't see the room for it really.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Mudcat

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

If as John 17 states the Apostles and those that believe the Apostles were/are to become perfect and one like Jesus, and God the Father. That by defintion means more than one God. Further it still fits well into "There are Gods many...but only one God we have anything to do with" of the Bible. Such beliefs are entirely consistent with the LDS concept of Theosis.

[mfbukowski]

I am totally busy every minute between now and Monday or Tuesday.

Maybe I will get to replies then. But Ahab, I think you don't understand philosophy, which I am sure is ok with you.

Edited August 20, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Originally I saw a bit of a paradox between accepting your own experiences vs. accepting the experiences of others (JS for one). But if I am reading you right, the HS through revelation serves a role to help bridge that gap. Have I got that right?

Yep!

Don't misread this Bukowski, I am not offended at all, but that is quite a load of poppycock you've dropped off in the last two sentences. It's certainly an incorrect position on Protestantism.

Ok- sorry.

I think most Protestants would agree with me that salvation is dependent on personal revelation to the believer by the Holy Spirit of the reality of Christ. We certainly don't dismiss it, it is a part of our belief... in fact I would say that personal revelation is the cause of our belief, in some respect.

There's another thread on this now, so maybe I'll see you there- but how does this then differ from Moroni 10: 3-5? I would not have found Christ if it had not been through praying about the Book of Mormon.

As to the "no private interpretation", I think most protestants would say that God reveals individual revelation to each believer, though the Bible in tandem with the Spirit would be the chief mode for such. We believe the Holy Spirt opens the Scriptures up to us and reveals to us the understanding of them in his own time.

This is exactly what we believe as well.

However, you may be referring to the bit in Peter about "private interpretation", though. That verse has more to do with Peter assuring that the prophets were not simply doling out their interpretation of things instead of it being given by God in a more direct fashion.

OK- but that to me implies continuing revelation to those prophets about getting the "right" interpretation.

I would agree that God does not change.

I would disagree that we aren't ontologically close. Through faith, we are his children.

Frankly, that sounds very confusing. How can we be his children and be ontologically different?

I would disagree that we can not experience him directly. If the Spirit is in us and reveals things to us, then it would be fair to say that this is experiencing God.

Great- so you would acknowledge that the LDS experience then is also "experiencing God"?

I certainly do believe God is eternally praise worthy. Do you not? Do LDS believe that they will attain a point in which the praiseworthiness of God will be dismissed as irrelevant?

Didn't mean to imply that- I will always praise my father, but we would be working directly together on projects if he were still alive. He would still be teaching me, but I would be growing more alike him every day, slowly becoming nearly equals- but never quite equal really. But our relationship would not be me merely praising him all day long- that is my understanding of "Evangelical heaven".

I would agree that God will always be greater than my own individuality. In that sense, I am inferior and will continue to be so. However, this is simply comparing God to me, by doing so I will always come up short.

I'll buy that one. Maybe the problem is I don't understand what you expect heaven to be like.

As I see it, though, it isn't an apple and oranges type scenario IMO. It is my belief that I am a part of God's plan, a joint-heir with Christ through Christ, I am His child.. and this has meaning. Though I don't ever believe I will become God, like LDS think towards exaltation. I do think through Christ, one day I will become the best Mudcat that there can be. I think that is what God wants and wills, and in that respect, I don't imagine I can associate the word "inferior" with God's will and my part within it.

Pretty much agree, but you are somehow a "child" in relation to him, and yet ontologically different and cannot approach his superiority on an ontological basis. That's what I don't get.

I certainly recognize God as my Father and me as his child. I am very excited about the hereafter and don't claim to have as much in the way of specific knowledge as LDS assert from their beliefs. But as I understand Scripture there is and will be only one God.

OK- I think it is clear what points we would agree and disagree on here!

[mfbukowski]

I am totally busy every minute between now and Monday or Tuesday.

Maybe I will get to replies then. But Ahab, I think you don't understand philosophy, which I am sure is ok with you.

Actually, I think I am done-ish as is, unless the Mudmeister has something to say.

I'm too busy to keep going over the same territory. Ahab you need a humble pill again. You're getting just a tad arrogant again.

[mfbukowski]

One last shot on correspondence- this is what I was trying to say more simply:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#9.2

9.2 No Independent Access to Reality

The objection that may well have been the most effective in causing discontent with the correspondence theory is based on an epistemological concern. In a nutshell, the objection is that a correspondence theory of truth must inevitably lead into skepticism about the external world because the required correspondence between our thoughts and reality is not ascertainable. Ever since Berkeley's attack on the representational theory of the mind, objections of this sort have enjoyed considerable popularity. It is typically pointed out that we cannot step outside our own minds to compare our thoughts with mind-independent reality. Yet—so the objection continues—on the correspondence theory of truth, this is precisely what we would have to do to gain knowledge. We would have to access reality as it is in itself, independently of our cognition of it, and determine whether our thoughts correspond to it. Since this is impossible, since all our access to the world is mediated by our cognition, the correspondence theory makes knowledge impossible (cf. Kant 1800, intro vii). Assuming that the resulting skepticism is unacceptable, the correspondence theory has to be rejected, and some other account of truth, an epistemic (anti-realist) account of some sort, has to be put in its place (Cf., e.g., Blanshard 1941.)

This type of objection brings up a host of issues in epistemology, the philosophy of mind, and general metaphysics. All that can be done here is to hint at a few pertinent points (cf. Searle 1995, chap. 7; David 2004, 6.7). The objection makes use of the following line of reasoning: “If truth is correspondence, then, since knowledge requires truth, we have to know that our beliefs correspond to reality, if we are to know anything about reality”. There are two assumptions implicit in this line of reasoning, both of them debatable.

(i) It is assumed that S knows x only if S knows that x is true—a requirement not underwritten by standard definitions of knowledge, which tell us that S knows x only if x is true and S is justified in believing x. The assumption may rest on confusing requirements for knowing x with requirements for knowing that one knows x.

(ii) It is assumed that, if truth = F, then S knows that x is true only if S knows that x has F. This seems highly implausible. By the same standard it would follow that no one who does not know that water is H₂O can know that the Nile contains water—which would mean, of course, that until fairly recently nobody knew that the Nile contained water (and that, analogously, until fairly recently nobody knew that there were stars in the sky, whales in the sea, or that the sun gives light). Moreover, even if one does know that water is H₂O, one's strategy for finding out whether the liquid in one's glass is water does not have to involve chemical analysis: one could simply taste it, or ask a reliable informant. Similarly, as far as knowing that x is true is concerned, it seems the correspondence theory does not entail that we have to know that a belief corresponds to a fact in order to know that it is true, or that our method of finding out whether a belief is true has to involve a strategy of actually comparing a belief with a fact—although the theory does of course entail that obtaining knowledge requires obtaining a belief that corresponds to a fact.

More generally, one might question whether the objection still has much bite once the metaphors of “accessing” and “comparing” are spelled out with more attention to the psychological details of belief formation and to epistemological issues concerning the conditions under which beliefs are justified or warranted. For example, it is quite unclear how the metaphor of “comparing” applies to knowledge gained through perceptual belief-formation. One might also wonder whether competing accounts of truth actually enjoy any significant advantage over the correspondence theory, once they are held to the standards set up by this sort of objection.

In one form or another, the “No independent access to reality”-objection against correspondence theoretic approaches has been one of the, if not the, main source and motivation for idealist and anti-realist stances in philosophy (cf., e.g., Stove 1991). However, the connection between correspondence theories of truth and the metaphysical realism vs. anti-realism (or idealism) debate seems less direct than is often assumed. On the one hand, deflationists and identity theorists can be, and typically are, metaphysical realists while rejecting the correspondence theory; and advocates of a correspondence theory, on the other hand, might be metaphysical idealists (e.g., McTaggart 1921) or anti-realists, maintaining that facts are constituted by mind or maintaining that what facts there are depends somehow on what we believe or are capable of believing.

[zerinus]

I am sure philosophers and academics have their own reasons for defining truth in whatever why they want, and their definitions will no doubt be of academic interest to some. However, from the LDS perspective, the only definition of truth that matters is the one that the Lord has given, which I quoted before:

D&C 93

:

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

This scripture deserves closer scrutiny. Firstly, it defined truth as knowledge. Truth is “knowledge of things . . .” This to me suggests that “truth” and “knowability” are inextricably linked. Truth by definition is something that is “knowable”. It can be seen, known, and understood. That also implies the existence of an intelligent being who is capable of “knowing” it. “Knowability” outside of a “knower” cannot be conceived. If something is “knowable,” that implies an intelligent being who is capable of “knowing” it—otherwise “knowledge” becomes a meaningless concept. This at once puts paid to the Evangelical doctrine that God in inherently unknowable and incomprehensible. An incomprehensible God is a false God.

Jesus tells us in the Gospel of John that to “know God” is eternal life. The question here is, what kind of “knowledge” is it talking about? If it means just knowing about God, or the fact that He exists, or even knowing what the scriptures tell us about Him, then a lot of people already have that; but it cannot be said that such people already have “eternal life”. So it is a special kind of “knowing” that it is talking about here, which goes beyond the kind of knowing described above. It means knowing or comprehending God fully, which must include knowing everything that God knows. That is the only way to fully know or comprehend God—hence obtain eternal life—hence the doctrine of thesis also. To know God fully is to become God—therefore to know everything that He knows.

Jesus described His mission in mortality as follows:

John 18

:

37 To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

According to the definition suggested in this verse, truth has an independent existence from those who know (or do not know) it. But still, it is inextricably linked to “knowability”. It is something that can be “known,” otherwise it is not truth. And to “know” something is not the same thing as hallucinating about it. John the Revelator talks about the truth in these terms:

1 John 2

:

20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye

know

all things.

21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

This brings us to more abstract or spiritual definitions of truth. In the spiritual realm, truth is given the attribute of light. Light is something that enables us to see things as they are, or to know the truth about them. If I entered a dark room, I can make some good guesses about what kind of room it is, and what is in it, by feeling my way around; but unless I can get some light in there, I will not have a clear understanding of it. In the spiritual realm, searching for truth is like shining a light into a dark room to find something. The more of that light you have, the more quickly and clearly you will be able to find what you are looking for. By contrast, the spirit of Satan is called darkness, which is the essence of a lie, which prevents us from seeing things as they really are. It is the opposite of the truth. This is what is taught in these verses:

D&C 50

:

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

D&C 93

:

23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

Truth is neither “relative” nor an arbitrary concept. There is no such thing as something being “true” for one person and “not true” for someone else. Truth ultimately relates to how God sees things. He “knows” all truth, and is the source of all truth, and He is the only one from whom that truth can be obtained. The only alternative to it is a spirit of darkness which is of Satan, and therefore a lie.

[Mudcat]

Yep!

Okay, I think I would agree with that in some ways. In general I think there are a number of similarities we share on our notions of "what is the truth". I will confess, at least as I have seen you express it, there is a solipsistic sort of primacy that goes along with the pragmatic view, that I don't feel comfortable with. I suppose my view is more commonsensical in how I regard external sorts of things.

Ok- sorry.

NP.

There's another thread on this now, so maybe I'll see you there- but how does this then differ from Moroni 10: 3-5? I would not have found Christ if it had not been through praying about the Book of Mormon.

There are certainly similarities, I think. In my particular case, my testimony of Christ was not something I prayed for. It was something God gave me at a particular time. But I think there are those who have come to Christ who have prayed for God to reveal himself to them and God responded. James 1:5 would certainly assert God will give us what we lack in regards to wisdom.

There are differences, in that the Bible doesn't ask us to specifically pray about the truth of the Bible. Rather, it seems to present an a priori assumption that it reflects God's truth.. which would certainly entail a priori that God exists, Jesus is the risen Lord and so forth. So I don't want to say that there aren't some subtle differences, but I don't there is much to debate on the matter.

I mean, I don't think it is wrong for a person to pray about the BoM or something. I have done so myself, our results of such prayer have been different. I think we both agree that spiritual truth is superlative to truth via natural apprehension and there is nothing wrong with praying to receive more understanding from God.

This is exactly what we believe as well.

Good.

However' date=' you may be referring to the bit in Peter about "private interpretation", though. That verse has more to do with Peter assuring that the prophets were not simply doling out their interpretation of things instead of it being given by God in a more direct fashion.[/quote']

OK- but that to me implies continuing revelation to those prophets about getting the "right" interpretation.

I don't see the implication of that. My exegetical view of what Peter was talking about in 2 Peter 1, is that he was referring to existing corpus of Messianic prophecy.

Frankly, that sounds very confusing. How can we be his children and be ontologically different?

I don't see it as all that complicated. 2 Peter is a book that is just full of of some very exciting things. In 1:4 we are told..

4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature

Through Christ we will be become partners/partakers in the divine nature. This sounds like ontological exactness, of a sort at least. I would note that it is not my belief that we literally become God. God is sovereign, and we can only partake in this nature via Him. It is by Him and through him for such a partnership to exist. However, I don't see that a non-believer has any ontological relation to God, other than to note that such a person has the potentiality to be one of his children.

Great- so you would acknowledge that the LDS experience then is also "experiencing God"?

I can't speak with certainty as I speak of my own experience, but I have no sufficient reason to doubt that LDS do experience God. If we are to judge the tree by it's fruit, LDS are fruitful.

Didn't mean to imply that- I will always praise my father, but we would be working directly together on projects if he were still alive. He would still be teaching me, but I would be growing more alike him every day, slowly becoming nearly equals- but never quite equal really. But our relationship would not be me merely praising him all day long- that is my understanding of "Evangelical heaven".

I don't doubt that some EV's superficially hold to such a view, this may be a snippet of the "popular view". I can't imagine such a place, it would be quite boring and besides that such a view is clear misunderstanding of what the Bible tells us about heaven.

Most EV's who have taken the time to actually consider what the Bible does say, walk away with much different conclusions.

In that respect, we acknowledge we do have roles in heaven. Heaven is where we receive our rewards part of which is authority.. and authority implies duty and responsibility. Certainly we will praise our God, but much of this praise will be transmitted through our service for the Kingdom. I would imagine such a place is progressive, at least in that we continue to grow and learn from God and in some respects our views aren't dissimilar. However, the notion that at some point it will be probable that I or anyone else will be another God.

[LeSellers]

Do LDS believe that they will attain a point in which the praiseworthiness of God will be dismissed as irrelevant?

In all of the discussions we (not just you and I) have seen here, I cannot think of a single point where anyone could reach that conclusion (except for things written by anti-Mormons).

We know that God will always be our God and our Father. That alone would make Him praiseworthy through all eternities. But there is more, too: He will always be greater than any of us because His power will be greater. He will have greater dominions, a larger kingdom, and we will depend on Him for our positions.

The implication in this question demonstrates that you do not understand LDS doctrine on the subject of "theosis", or what we prefer to call "the plan of eternal progression".

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Truth is neither “relative” nor an arbitrary concept. There is no such thing as something being “true” for one person and “not true” for someone else.

I suppose that means you and I are hungry at the same time and love the same woman.

I think you are not thinking about this too clearly.