What Is The "Truth"?

[Calm]

Not at all. I don't have to try at all. It comes quite naturally.

[Ahab]

Not at all. I don't have to try at all. It comes quite naturally.

zerinus said it looked to him like you were being obtuse, and you said not at all...

What did your statement correspond to?

I don't think you caught what zerinus was saying.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Ahab

[HiJolly]

God is love... Love is based on understanding & truth. The more understanding, the more truthful, the more loving, the more Godlike.

Love is not for the faint of heart... because often the truth isn't pretty.

Great comments.

I like this: "Beauty is the truth, seen through the eyes of love."

I also think that truth is a terrible master. Not terrible as in 'bad', but terrible as in 'powerful' 'impactful' and 'undeviating'.

HiJolly

[mfbukowski]

I believe the LDS church is the best religious organization in the world, but I know it doesn't have all the truth & nothing but the truth.

It's organized by imperfect people... Even Jesus is portrayed by imperfect people in imperfect ways, to be perfect. lol

Agreed. But it doesn't claim to have "all the truth" either. It makes no claims whatsoever about string theory or the causes of autism, for example.

And yes, some General Authorities have made some strange remarks. But that for me doesn't change the fact that it has everything I need to put together a cohesive understanding of my place in the world, my relationship with God and an understanding of the role of Jesus Christ.

Putting on my traditionalist hat, it has everything we need for our salvation and exaltation, and after all, that is "all" it really claims to have anyway.

[mfbukowski]

zerinus said it looked to him like you were being obtuse, and you said not at all...

What did your statement correspond to?

I don't think you caught what zerinus was saying.

Of course it didn't correspond to anything. No statements do.

It just proves, of course, that I am indeed "obtuse".

I don't want to argue about it any more with you guys. It's going nowhere

Edited August 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Great comments.

I like this: "Beauty is the truth, seen through the eyes of love."

I also think that truth is a terrible master. Not terrible as in 'bad', but terrible as in 'powerful' 'impactful' and 'undeviating'.

HiJolly

Not to mention a pain in the......

......head

[mfbukowski]

I just thought I would post this, not to show that I am right - but of course I am- but to show some of the problems associated with Correspondence.

I am not completely sure that William Craig is a believer in correspondence, but he certainly argues like one. He is an Evangelical here discussing the Mormon witness of the spirit. This was just quoted on another thread by my buddy WalkerW

This is the quandary and conflict one can experience in reasoning about religious experience when one is a correspondence theorist--

http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=8237

Subject: Counterfeit Claims to the Witness of the Spirit

Question:

In your podcast “Religious Experience: Subjective Or Objective”, you say that since the Mormon does not have a “real” witness of the Holy Spirit, that eventually, under the weight of other objective verifiable evidence, his confidence will crack. Eventually coming to see he was mistaken.

I think I follow your logic that at this point the conflict between the Christian and the Mormon must hinge upon these “other evidences” that are unmistakably positive of the Christian World-view, and detrimental to the view of the Mormon.

However, I am still having trouble making this work with your stance on allowing a witness of the Spirit to trump objective evidence as mentioned in your response to Question #68. I understand that “available evidence” changes from place to place and time to time, but while this allows the Christian to remain Christian in light of “available evidence” to the contrary, doesn’t it, in turn, allow Mormons to honestly remain Mormons by citing the same philosophy?

So if evidentialism isn’t necessary, which I would agree that is isn’t; Then how can a Christian and a Mormon gain any ground one way or another? Both would believe their Spiritual Witness to be authentic, and both would claim that since we only see in part, Evidence cannot possibly rule their experience out. In the aforementioned podcast, you gave an analogy of bottles labeled as water. You said that if only one of the bottles is water, and the rest is poison, that the truth of the correctly labeled bottle is in no way lessened because of the mislabeling of the others. But how can the person with the poison (false witness) know what he has isn’t water if he won’t listen to evidence based on his experience? In turn how can the person with the H2O (Real Holy Spirit) know they don’t have a mislabeled Bottle? Is the true bottle of water unmistakable when experienced? If so, then must I conclude that the Mormon claiming the true witness is lying or simply mistaken? Can’t this argument also be used by the Mormon against a Christian who is certain of their own experience of the correctly labeled bottle or water? I understand that just because an argument is reversible doesn’t cancel the truthfulness of correct application, but wouldn’t it rule out the usefulness of such application?

Thank you for all you do,

Paul

Dr. Craig responds:

Communicating my understanding of the proper basicality of certain Christian beliefs grounded by the Spirit’s witness has proven to be extraordinarily difficult. Your question concerns a Christian who enjoys the witness of God’s Holy Spirit and is confronted with a Mormon who claims to have a similar self-authenticating experience of God (a “burning in the bosom”) in favor of Mormonism. In addressing this question, Paul, it’s important to distinguish between knowing Christianity is true and showing Christianity is true.

With respect to knowing Christianity is true, I have written,

But how is the fact that other persons claim to experience a selfauthenticating witness of God’s Spirit relevant to my knowing the truth of Christianity via the Spirit’s witness? The existence of an authentic and unique witness of the Spirit does not exclude the existence of false claims to such a witness. How, then, does the existence of false claims of the Spirit’s witness to the truth of a nonChristian religion do anything logically to undermine the fact that the Christian believer does possess the genuine witness of the Spirit? Why should I be robbed of my joy and assurance of salvation simply because someone else falsely pretends, sincerely or insincerely, to the Spirit’s witness? If a Mormon or Muslim falsely claims to experience the witness of God’s Spirit in his heart, that does nothing to undermine the veridicality of my experience (Reasonable Faith, p. 49).

The analogy of the bottles all labeled H2O, but only one of which really contains water, is relevant to this point. The falsity of the other labels does nothing whatsoever to undercut the truth of the label on the bottle really containing the water. You ask, “how can the person with the H2O (Real Holy Spirit) know they don’t have a mislabeled Bottle? Is the true bottle of water unmistakable when experienced? If so, then must I conclude that the Mormon claiming the true witness is lying or simply mistaken?” The answer is that the witness of the Holy Spirit is unmistakable (though not indubitable) for him who has it and attends to it. He who has it should, indeed, conclude, that the Mormon is lying or, more charitably, sincerely mistaken. The Mormon has probably been misled by a counterfeit experience, and the non-veridicality of his experience shouldn’t lead you to doubt the veridicality of your experience.

You ask, “Can’t this argument also be used by the Mormon against a Christian who is certain of their own experience of the correctly labeled bottle or water?” Of course, the Mormon can say this; he can use any argument he wants. But that doesn’t make his experience veridical or give me any reason to doubt mine. I think you grasp this, for you then say, “I understand that just because an argument is reversible doesn’t cancel the truthfulness of correct application.” “But,” you add, “wouldn’t it rule out the usefulness of such application?” Ah, useful for what? Showing him that Christianity is true? That is a matter of showing your faith to be true, not knowing your faith to be true. So let’s turn to that subject.....

The problem I think is clear. There is no way of showing which experience is "true" when the experiences are identical. There is no "third party" or other point of view- to see what the spiritual experiences "correspond" to- and therefore correspondence becomes irrelevant to show the truth or falsity of either position.

The only possible way to differentiate between two rival spiritual experiences is to stamp your foot and say, in effect "But MINE really IS true"- which is not a convincing argument (though it could be) In effect, that is what Craig is saying here.

In that case as members, we can only, with some graciousness hopefully admit that there may be other ways of seeing it- my personal solution is that God leads us where we will get closer to Christ, and it will all "come out in the wash" on the other side. I wish there was a better argument, but I have not seen one.

But then he uses the water bottle analogy- which is not a good analogy. Whether or not the bottles contain water is something which can be determined easily scientifically. It requires further study- further information or experience to determine if the bottles hold water or not.

Perhaps the test tube with some reagent or other will turn red or blue, or the gizmo-meter will show a negative test for whatsis- all experiences which are objectively verifiable by many in principle.

But all the scientific, objective tests in the world will not decide which spiritual experience is "true".

So we need to look at truth in a different way for spiritual experiences than by using "correspondence" in my most humble opinion, and that criterion for me is straight out of Alma 32 and Moroni 10:4- Moroni gives us the experience initially, and over the course of a lifetime it is "proven" by further subjective experiences perfectly reflected in Alma 32.

We don't hold the gospel to be true because it "corresponds" to anything- we hold it to be true because of the experiences we have with it.

Edited August 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

The problem I think is clear. There is no way of showing which experience is "true" when the experiences are identical.

There may be no way of showing, but there is a way of knowing—and the experiences are not “identical”.

There is no "third party" or other point of view- to see what the spiritual experiences "correspond" to- . . .

There is a “third party,” but that “third party” has a mind of His own, and He will only manifest the truth to whom He will. If you can’t win His favor, it can’t be done.

. . . and therefore correspondence becomes irrelevant to show the truth or falsity of either position.

It is not a way of showing, but a way of knowing. It is like the parable of the Ten Virgins. Each is responsible for having oil in her own lamp. The oil cannot be borrowed or shared. The difference between the two becomes apparent when the day of reckoning comes:

D&C 45

:

57 For they that are wise and have

received the truth,

and have taken the

Holy Spirit

for their guide, and have not been

deceived

—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.

Truth can only be seen and known by the light and power of the Spirit of God. If you do not have it, you are in darkness, and can neither see or know.

The only possible way to differentiate between two rival spiritual experiences is to stamp your foot and say, in effect "But MINE really IS true"- which is not a convincing argument (though it could be) In effect, that is what Craig is saying here.

It is not anyone’s job to “differentiate between rival experiences” for someone else. If someone thinks they have the “right experience,” good luck to him. My job is to witness to the truth as I know it. The difference becomes apparent when the day of reckoning comes. You are basically arguing that truth cannot be known. Wrong! It can be known, but not by everyone. Some people are not “of the truth” (John 18:37), therefore they cannot know it.

In that case as members, we can only, with some graciousness hopefully admit that there may be other ways of seeing it- my personal solution is that God leads us where we will get closer to Christ, and it will all "come out in the wash" on the other side. I wish there was a better argument, but I have not seen one.

There may be more than one road that “leads to Rome;” but if someone is on the road that goes away from Rome, while thinking all the time that he is going to Rome, there is no way that he is going to get to Rome.

But then he uses the water bottle analogy- which is not a good analogy. Whether or not the bottles contain water is something which can be determined easily scientifically. It requires further study- further information or experience to determine if the bottles hold water or not.

Perhaps the test tube with some reagent or other will turn red or blue, or the gizmo-meter will show a negative test for whatsis- all experiences which are objectively verifiable by many in principle.

Water doesn’t have a mind of its own, but God does. He has set certain preconditions for someone to know Him. Without fulfilling the conditions, it cannot be done.

But all the scientific, objective tests in the world will not decide which spiritual experience is "true".

So what? Who cares that it doesn’t? It is not supposed to.

So we need to look at truth in a different way for spiritual experiences than by using "correspondence" in my most humble opinion, and that criterion for me is straight out of Alma 32 and Moroni 10:4- Moroni gives us the experience initially, and over the course of a lifetime it is "proven" by further subjective experiences perfectly reflected in Alma 32.

Your statement that “So we need to look at truth in a different way for spiritual experiences than by using "correspondence" . . .” doesn’t make sense. I don’t know what you are talking about. Try rephrasing it so it makes sense, and then you might get an answer.

We don't hold the gospel to be true because it "corresponds" to anything- we hold it to be true because of the experiences we have with it.

We hold the gospel to be true because the Holy Spirit of God, also known as the Spirit of Truth, enlightens our minds to enable us to see and know that truth. That is in fact the only way to know all truth. Once known, it then becomes a “knowledge” of something as it really is, because it is seen and known by the Spirit of Truth.

Edited August 30, 2011 by zerinus

[HeatherAnn]

Great comments.

I like this: "Beauty is the truth, seen through the eyes of love."

I also think that truth is a terrible master. Not terrible as in 'bad', but terrible as in 'powerful' 'impactful' and 'undeviating'.

HiJolly

Thanks, HiJolly.

I like that quote you mentioned.

And I agree that truth is a powerful master...

Maybe that is why Jesus was able to be as unconditionally loving as he was, & the way the truth & the light.

He saw both the ugly truth (was "aqainted with grief") but also experienced the kingdom of God within.

Edited August 30, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[HeatherAnn]

Agreed. But it doesn't claim to have "all the truth" either. It makes no claims whatsoever about string theory or the causes of autism, for example.

And yes, some General Authorities have made some strange remarks. But that for me doesn't change the fact that it has everything I need to put together a cohesive understanding of my place in the world, my relationship with God and an understanding of the role of Jesus Christ.

Putting on my traditionalist hat, it has everything we need for our salvation and exaltation, and after all, that is "all" it really claims to have anyway.

But it does claim to have "everything we need for our salvation and exaltation" - when it really doesn't have it all, & can't.

The kingdom (experience/spirit) of God is within us - not external, like the church tends to teach.

Although, I'd say, compared to some churches, the LDS church does well in teaching personal revelation etc., it still is lacking.

It's like saying we've found grapes! They are our answer to our diet! Grapes are good, but not by themselves - we need more than that. If we deny that, we don't properly deal with indigestion that a grape diet would produce.

Similarly...If we think we've found SALVATION & that the LDS church is the answer to our spiritual needs! Then we don't properly deal with problems like depression, weight issues, addictions or social problems that relying on external sources for salvation would produce (or contribute to).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Mudcat:

If you want facts go to the science department of your local university. If you want "truth" your local church, mosque, synagogue, Hindu temple is the place.

Clever but the two cannot be truth apart from the other could they?

Edited August 30, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[LeSellers]

The kingdom (experience/spirit) of God is within us - not external, like the church tends to teach.

CFR that the Church "tends to teach [the Kingdom of God is external as opposed to its being internal, as well]."

For purposes of clarity, you're citing Luke 17:21.

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

A little Greek might be helpful, since that's the language Luke used to convey Jesus' intent.

21 οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν· ἰδοὺ ὧδε ἤ· ἐκεῖ, ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν.

In that context:

• Please define "kingdom" (βασιλεία) and "kingdom of God" (βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ).
• Please define "within" (ἐντὸς).
• Please define "[of] you" (ὑμῶν).

You do know that we're talking of the Kingdom both literally and figuratively, right?

Lehi

Edited August 30, 2011 by LeSellers

[Calm]

But it does claim to have "everything we need for our salvation and exaltation" - when it really doesn't have it all, & can't.

The LDS faith provides us with all of the tools we need for our salvation and exaltation at this time and provides us a way though exercising those tools, including the Gift of the Holy Ghost, to receive from God whatever else we might require at any time in the future. It does not provide for us the effort, sincerity, the personal revelation and connection with God, etc. etc. IOW, God has given us a limited set of tools through the Church that allow us to develop the mortal skills and desires to seek out more.

The Church does not claim to have everything for exaltation in some neat package...rather it provides the foundation and structure which we build our process of becoming during mortality, see Joseph Smith's quote below in my sig that speaks of this life only possessing a small portion of the experience we will go through on our path of seeking out God.

Similarly...If we think we've found SALVATION & that the LDS church is the answer to our spiritual needs! Then we don't properly deal with problems like depression, weight issues, addictions or social problems that relying on external sources for salvation would produce (or contribute to).

If anyone believes this [we are to rely on external sources for salvation], they haven't been listening to what LDS actually teach unless they define that "external source" as God.

http://lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/building-the-kingdom?lang=eng&query=%22the+kingdom+within%22

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

“Thy kingdom come.” [Matthew 6:10.] … This was taught by Jesus to his disciples when they came to him, saying, teach us to pray. … Thy kingdom come. What kingdom? What is the meaning of “thy kingdom come”? It means the rule of God. It means the law of God. It means the government of God. It means the people who have listened to and who are willing to listen to and observe the commands of Jehovah. And it means that there is a God who is willing to guide and direct and sustain his people. Thy kingdom come, that thy government may be established, and the principles of eternal truth as they exist in the heavens may be imparted to men; and that, when they are imparted to men, those men may be in subjection to those laws and to that government, and live in the fear of God, keeping his commandments and being under his direction. Thy kingdom come, that the confusion, the evil, and wickedness, the murder and bloodshed that now exist among mankind may be done away, and the principles of truth and right, the principles of kindness, charity, and love as they dwell in the bosom of the Gods, may dwell with us.¹²

http://lds.org/manua...ery=kingdom+God

But it does claim to have "everything we need for our salvation and exaltation" - when it really doesn't have it all, & can't.

The kingdom (experience/spirit) of God is within us - not external, like the church tends to teach.

I am curious as to what your current relationship with the LDS Church is. You apparently have beliefs you believe are different than those taught by the Church. You apparently believe that some of the Church's teachings are significantly wrong and may promote mental, emotional and physical illness. Do you see yourself as an observer of the Church, a member in full fellowship or as someone who has taken what they could learn from the Church and moved beyond it or something else? I am quite confused by your comments as it feels like the overall context keeps being changed.

By any chance, have you read this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0060670541/ref=dp_readdesc_b?ie=UTF8&s=books

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

But it does claim to have "everything we need for our salvation and exaltation" - when it really doesn't have it all, & can't.

The kingdom (experience/spirit) of God is within us - not external, like the church tends to teach.

Although, I'd say, compared to some churches, the LDS church does well in teaching personal revelation etc., it still is lacking.

It's like saying we've found grapes! They are our answer to our diet! Grapes are good, but not by themselves - we need more than that. If we deny that, we don't properly deal with indigestion that a grape diet would produce.

Similarly...If we think we've found SALVATION & that the LDS church is the answer to our spiritual needs! Then we don't properly deal with problems like depression, weight issues, addictions or social problems that relying on external sources for salvation would produce (or contribute to).

Notice that in the first line you actually quoted, I said that it does not provide scientific answers, not does it attempt to.

One other point- the LDS church is the only one I am aware of that teaches exaltation or "radical theosis" so I was wondering where one could get more teachings on the subject. The only "external teaching" I can think of on this subject is found in the temple and is strictly symbolic and not at all explicit- yet you seem to think this isn't "internal" enough?

Are you saying that you can achieve exaltation without the need for ceremonies and/or authority? I don't know of any mystics who think that Godhood can be achieved by meditation only- I have never seen that idea. Enlightenment, perhaps but not godhood!!?!?!

In fact I think the two ideas are quite different- one implies unity with the universe and the other implies creation of universes. That to me is an important distinction and I think that you would agree with me that we "create our own world"- so are you now giving up on social constructivism and going more toward something mystical which cannot be shared?

I think the LDS path is unquestionably a shared, social, family path as opposed to one which is purely mystical and self-oriented?

I'm not saying one is "better" than the other but surely they are quite different.

[HeatherAnn]

LeSellers,

I didn't quote any reference, it was my perspective, as well as others' who've chosen to look within instead of without.

Calmoriah,

I hesitate to respond to you because I simply don't feel like arguing the way you've argued in the past.

But thanks for your comments in response to my post, anyway.

Notice that in the first line you actually quoted, I said that it does not provide scientific answers, not does it attempt to.

One other point- the LDS church is the only one I am aware of that teaches exaltation or "radical theosis" so I was wondering where one could get more teachings on the subject. The only "external teaching" I can think of on this subject is found in the temple and is strictly symbolic and not at all explicit- yet you seem to think this isn't "internal" enough?

Are you saying that you can achieve exaltation without the need for ceremonies and/or authority? I don't know of any mystics who think that Godhood can be achieved by meditation only- I have never seen that idea. Enlightenment, perhaps but not godhood!!?!?!

In fact I think the two ideas are quite different- one implies unity with the universe and the other implies creation of universes. That to me is an important distinction and I think that you would agree with me that we "create our own world"- so are you now giving up on social constructivism and going more toward something mystical which cannot be shared?

I think the LDS path is unquestionably a shared, social, family path as opposed to one which is purely mystical and self-oriented?

I'm not saying one is "better" than the other but surely they are quite different.

Mf,

I realize you mentioned & of course the church doesn't cover physics, calculus & many other subjects.

Yet, you did mention that the church "has everything we need for our salvation and exaltation, and after all, that is "all" it really claims to have anyway."

Exhalt: Raise to a higher rank or a position of greater power.

A while back, I also sought more teachings on the subject of exhaltation. I don't think there's just 1 manual - but you pick it up here & there... line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little... that's spirituality... that's enlightenment, the gospel (seeing the light of good news - news only to us) - progress.

Most of what is taught is external... And that's ok for kids - they think concretely & have a hard even beginning to grasp abstract concepts until about 8 years old (which is perfect timing for baptism IMO).

Yet, us adults should be able to handle more... However, in church curriculum & especially discussions, the focus is on the literal - which misses the point.

The scriptures are not history lessons. We have "his story" lessons. The scriptures are to be likened to us. There's a deeper layer of understanding that when grasped, lifts us higher, exhalting us - little by little, as we learn.

Ceremonies are like tools, like the scriptures. When I die, I won't take the scriptures with me, nor will I take the temple, nor any temple clothes or furnishings with me. What I'll take is the spirit within me. That's it.

Authority (or power) is acquired by us each, as we develop the spirit of whatever we are getting authority for.

I do believe that we are connected & are meant to work together, yet I also believe that I cannot think for you, nor you, for me, therefore the spirit we acquire is, mostly, up to us.

I don't think Godhood could be achieved by meditations only. Faith without works is dead.

That's partly my point, Mf. God is love/charity - the pure love of Christ. Love is HOPING & actively striving for what's best, through trial & error (faith).

Effectively expressed love is based on understanding (truth). The more I understand you, the more I can love you... The less I understand you, the less I am able to love you in a meaningful way to you.

Loving others as ourselves, is the essence of spirituality, God & becoming more Godlike.

I am not going off into la la Mystic Land. Nor am I going off into Concrete Literalness land. lol

As you mentioned, God is about creating... not just perceiving of creation... but actively creating - as I just mentioned in defining love, our purpose.

As I mentioned in the analogy with grapes... Many are spiritually starving - even within the church!

I'm not saying that meditation or yoga will solve all problems.

I'm suggesting...

- that people liken the scriptures to them - symbolically, not literally,

-Realize when you (people in general) get addicted to the internet, food, or anything... it's because you're spiritually hungry - so go for a walk in nature, or do something that uplifts your spirits instead of indulging your carnal side.

-Explore your soul (Psychology) - try to deal with your pain while it's mild, before it becomes overwhelming.

-Consider God IS love... & that love is the most important pursuit & purpose we have!

-Consider God is not about fear or shame - but about doing what's best in the long run...

God won't kick us when we're down - it's us who do that.

My goal is to heal... & then as I heal, to help others heal in those ways.

Edited August 30, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[LeSellers]

I didn't quote any reference, it was my perspective, as well as others' who've chosen to look within instead of without.

I know you didn't. That's why I asked. It sounded as if you were making the assertion that the church teaches this formally. If you had been making that assertion, I'd like to know about it.

Lehi

P.S.: It's my real name. My mother-in-law calls me "Lehi". So did Presidents Carter and Clinton. Please feel free to use it, too. LS

Edited August 30, 2011 by LeSellers

[HeatherAnn]

I know you didn't. That's why I asked. It sounded as if you were making the assertion that the church teaches this formally. If you had been making that assertino, I'd like to know about it.

Lehi

P.S.: It's my real name. My mother-in-law calls me "Lehi". So did Presidents Carter and Clinton. Please feel free to use it, too. LS

Lehi,

Thanks for pointing out your name.

I just elaborated on what I meant in my response to Mf.

Let me know if you want to know more.

[mfbukowski]

Mf,

I realize you mentioned & of course the church doesn't cover physics, calculus & many other subjects.

Yet, you did mention that the church "has everything we need for our salvation and exaltation, and after all, that is "all" it really claims to have anyway."

Exhalt: Raise to a higher rank or a position of greater power.

A while back, I also sought more teachings on the subject of exhaltation. I don't think there's just 1 manual - but you pick it up here & there... line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little... that's spirituality... that's enlightenment, the gospel (seeing the light of good news - news only to us) - progress.

Most of what is taught is external... And that's ok for kids - they think concretely & have a hard even beginning to grasp abstract concepts until about 8 years old (which is perfect timing for baptism IMO).

Yet, us adults should be able to handle more... However, in church curriculum & especially discussions, the focus is on the literal - which misses the point.

The scriptures are not history lessons. We have "his story" lessons. The scriptures are to be likened to us. There's a deeper layer of understanding that when grasped, lifts us higher, exhalting us - little by little, as we learn.

Ceremonies are like tools, like the scriptures. When I die, I won't take the scriptures with me, nor will I take the temple, nor any temple clothes or furnishings with me. What I'll take is the spirit within me. That's it.

Authority (or power) is acquired by us each, as we develop the spirit of whatever we are getting authority for.

I do believe that we are connected & are meant to work together, yet I also believe that I cannot think for you, nor you, for me, therefore the spirit we acquire is, mostly, up to us.

I don't think Godhood could be achieved by meditations only. Faith without works is dead.

That's partly my point, Mf. God is love/charity - the pure love of Christ. Love is HOPING & actively striving for what's best, through trial & error (faith).

Effectively expressed love is based on understanding (truth). The more I understand you, the more I can love you... The less I understand you, the less I am able to love you in a meaningful way to you.

Loving others as ourselves, is the essence of spirituality, God & becoming more Godlike.

I am not going off into la la Mystic Land. Nor am I going off into Concrete Literalness land. lol

As you mentioned, God is about creating... not just perceiving of creation... but actively creating - as I just mentioned in defining love, our purpose.

As I mentioned in the analogy with grapes... Many are spiritually starving - even within the church!

I'm not saying that meditation or yoga will solve all problems.

I'm suggesting...

- that people liken the scriptures to them - symbolically, not literally,

-Realize when you (people in general) get addicted to the internet, food, or anything... it's because you're spiritually hungry - so go for a walk in nature, or do something that uplifts your spirits instead of indulging your carnal side.

-Explore your soul (Psychology) - try to deal with your pain while it's mild, before it becomes overwhelming.

-Consider God IS love... & that love is the most important pursuit & purpose we have!

-Consider God is not about fear or shame - but about doing what's best in the long run...

God won't kick us when we're down - it's us who do that.

My goal is to heal... & then as I heal, to help others heal in those ways.

Try as I might, there isn't much here I feel inclined to argue about.

Possibly one modification is that I do have a testimony of authority in the gospel. Having experienced a little, I can tell you that the mantle is very very real and has little to do with how far one has advanced personally.

[Ahab]

Try as I might, there isn't much here I feel inclined to argue about.

Possibly one modification is that I do have a testimony of authority in the gospel. Having experienced a little, I can tell you that the mantle is very very real and has little to do with how far one has advanced personally.

You would say that you are advanced personally when you're wearing the mantle, though, wouldn't you?

It's not just God working on his own. It's God working through you, and one of the benefits you get as God works through you is at least a little taste of what it feels like to be him... which is hopefully what you will continue to become.

Also take into consideration the fact that you are noticing what God is doing through you, which makes you at least as enlightened as you are noticing.

[mfbukowski]

You would say that you are advanced personally when you're wearing the mantle, though, wouldn't you?

It's not just God working on his own. It's God working through you, and one of the benefits you get as God works through you is at least a little taste of what it feels like to be him... which is hopefully what you will continue to become.

Also take into consideration the fact that you are noticing what God is doing through you, which makes you at least as enlightened as you are noticing.

I don't know what you are saying, I just know that I am nothing, but wearing the mantle makes me God's instrument whether I am doing well personally or not. I know that sure as I know I am writing this.

[Ahab]

I don't know what you are saying, I just know that I am nothing, but wearing the mantle makes me God's instrument whether I am doing well personally or not. I know that sure as I know I am writing this.

You are not nothing. You are a child of our Father in heaven and as such you are more precious to him than anything in all of existence, just as all of his children are.

You may feel like just an itty bitty tiny little speck that can't even be seen when looking at the entire universe, but God can see you and knows you exist and he even his own name for you.

Anyway, that's kindof beside the point that I was making.

What I meant was that whether or not you are wearing a "mantle" you are someone who God is working with, even though you may notice God more when you are wearing a mantle than when you don't have one on, and that what you are noticing when you wear a mantle is a little bit more of what God is doing through you while you are still you, which means you are noticing not only God working through you, but who you are and a little bit more of what you have the potential to be.

That's what I meant, and if you don't understand what I'm saying this time then maybe you're not meant to right now.

[mfbukowski]

That's what I meant, and if you don't understand what I'm saying this time then maybe you're not meant to right now.

Or maybe you are not meant to know what I was saying. You should examine that possibility

Edited August 31, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Or maybe you are not meant to know what I was saying. You should examine that possibility

Okay. Nope. That's not the case.

[HiJolly]

Okay. Nope. That's not the case.

Heh.

HiJolly