The Use Of "Know" And "True" Within The Mormon Faith.

[Gervin]

As pointed out incorrectly... since that isn't true.

Truth is objective - or real - and when we come to know something we approach it - or an object of it - by those objects which we come to know, thus, we know it objectively, subjectively, with both perspectives blending together at the same time.

All truth must be appropriated subjectively, as you show, above.

What makes you think that what is being presented in scripture is a paradox?

What I experience is not a paradox. What I experience is an object and I come to know that object objectively AND subjectively.

I think it's a paradox because it can't be objectively known and, thus, puts us at the point in our life where we either depend on faith or take offense at the claim of Christ (fully human and fully divine). Trying to remove this paradox - this mystery, as it were - leads either to an attempt to objectify what we can't know objectively or to dismiss faith as mere silliness (but we can't know something so completely so as to dismiss it altogether). Scriptures are replete with this notion of teaching by paradox - the first shall be last / the last shall be first, you have to give up your life in order to save your life, etc.

Just as we all are, even though not all of us have the same glory, or a fulness of the glory, that he has.

We're all still divine, though, and we're all still human, or at least those of us who have come here as mortals.

Perhaps you are divine and human. I'm just human - which is about all I can handle

Edited July 31, 2012 by Gervin

[mfbukowski]

I see it somewhat differently. To me, there is a reason that the Lord sends out young, relatively naive and inexperienced men and women to serve on missions rather than highly educated philosophers and linguists who supposedly know the right words to use. It is because, to me, the "rolling forth" isn't so much a function of the specific words that we use when declaring the gospel, but the Spirit that attends them.

Indeed, I would submit that the reason the Lord relies on the young, naive men and women who may be "slow of speech," is so as to avoid the potential misperception that it is the words, themselves, that is doing the converting, rather than the Spirit. It may be an intentional way that God may help keep us rightly focused on the Word, rather than on the words.

In short, there very well may be a down-side to shifting the way we define words, or rather there may be a down-side to elevating the importance of words by trying to shift the way we define them. The down-side may be, as we find on another thread, people may end up making others an "Offender for a Word."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I of course understand this, believe it also, and have never said anything to the contrary.

Understanding philosophy is a function of education and has nothing to do with whether or not one "has the spirit". If our missionaries preached a flat earth, would they get more converts, or would they look foolish?

[Ahab]

You made the claim, board rules you provide the reference or withdraw the claim.

However, I will find references that reject that concept:

http://seminary.lds..../pgp-5-af-1.asp

http://jesuschrist.l...om-he-hath-sent

It helps to know that people use the word "being" in different ways, instead of thinking everyone has the same idea in mind when people use the word being. It may also help if you think of the reason you're having to point out which person of God you're referring to, instead of just saying "God" figuring everyone will know which person you're talking about. You say God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, but all 3 have one word in common, which is God. And why are they all called "God" ? Because they're all the same being, or the same "kind" of being, which we refer to as "God".

One being or kind of being which we call God, with each of those who are God existing as individual persons.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Ahab

[Calm]

It helps to know that people use the word "being" in different ways, instead of thinking everyone has the same idea in mind when people use the word being.

It also helps to use a word as a faith community uses the word when discussing their beliefs and not create one's own definition so it appears that they believe something they don't....such as an equivalence to the creedal Trinity.

And as I have demonstrated, the LDS faith community does not use the term "being" to describe the Godhead, but rather "three divine beings".

You will not, in fact, find the phrase "God is one being" on lds.org. I think that lack is for a very good reason. The Godhead is not a "being", it is a community.

Edited July 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

If our missionaries preached a flat earth, would they get more converts, or would they look foolish?

Here I think you are conflating "beliefs" with "words." If they preached "round earth", they may not look foolish and may get more converts, even though technically the earth isn't exactly "round." See what I mean about the words not being as important as the meaning and the attending spirit?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

All truth must be appropriated subjectively, as you show, above.

Yes, but truth itself is objective, and if you know any truth you know it objectively, too.

I think it's a paradox because it can't be objectively known and, thus, puts us at the point in our life where we either depend on faith or take offense at the claim of Christ (fully human and fully divine).

Realizing many people can come to know the same truth should tell you something is up. Do you at least agree that truth, itself, is objective?

Trying to remove this paradox - this mystery, as it were - leads either to an attempt to objectify what we can't know objectively or to dismiss faith as mere silliness (but we can't know something so completely so as to dismiss it altogether).

What paradox? I see no paradox.

Scriptures are replete with this notion of teaching by paradox - the first shall be last / the last shall be first, you have to give up your life in order to save your life, etc.

Perhaps it would help me if you explained what you mean by paradox. I still see no paradox. I see harmony and things working together.

Perhaps you are divine and human. I'm just human - which is about all I can handle

Your spirit is divine. You acknowledge at least that much, don't you? Edited July 31, 2012 by Ahab

[Ahab]

It also helps to use a word as a faith community uses the word when discussing their beliefs and not create one's own definition so it appears that they believe something they don't....such as an equivalence to the creedal Trinity.

And as I have demonstrated, the LDS faith community does not use the term "being" to describe the Godhead, but rather "three divine beings".

And what those LDS "mean" is that there is one kind of being with 3 of the persons who are that kind of being known as God.

Go deeper.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Ahab

[Calm]

No they do not.

http://www.lds.org/s...10.8?lang=eng#7

We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings.

http://www.lds.org/l...three-i-believe

Three Distinct Beings

The true Christian doctrine that the Godhead consists of three separate beings was known in biblical times.

http://www.lds.org/l...e-we-christians

They are distinct beings

http://www.lds.org/n...-the-holy-ghost

http://broadcast.lds...ntity-ep-11.pdf

That is, they’re infinitely more one that they are separate. They happen to be separate beings.

PS: If you want to describe your own belief in this manner, go for it. Just don't claim that this is how LDS in general define the Godhead, identify it as your own version. And certainly don't claim that the LDS understanding of the Godhead is identical to the creedal Trinity. It does a disservice for both beliefs and accomplishes nothing but confusion.

Edited July 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

And what those LDS "mean" is that there is one kind of being with 3 of the persons who are that kind of being known as God.

Go deeper.

This is specifically what LDS do NOT believe. The above is pure classical trinitarianism as understood by the Catholics

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0748.html

[Calm]

This is specifically what LDS do NOT believe. The above is pure classical trinitarianism as understood by the Catholics

http://catholiceduca...ion/re0748.html

The idea that the Godhead is some sort of corporate "being" like a family is definitely not how "being" is usually understood in conversation and definitely not what classical trinitarianism is. If someone wants to use a "corporate being" as a definition, they better be willing to state it outright rather than playing coy games about what "being" really means.

[Ahab]

We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings.

This is a reiteration of the same idea, with the word "beings" used to emphasize they are 3 separate individuals who are each God.

Your other quotes are emphasizing the same idea.

PS: If you want to describe your own belief in this manner, go for it. Just don't claim that this is how LDS in general define the Godhead, identify it as your own version. And certainly don't claim that the LDS understanding of the Godhead is identical to the creedal Trinity. It does a disservice for both beliefs and accomplishes nothing but confusion.

The confusion is what I was referring to in my post before this exchange between us started.

The truth of the matter is that there is only one kind of being in all of existence which is superior to all others, in terms of kind, and those who are that kind of being can correctly be referred to as "God".

You can refer to all who are that kind of being as more than one being if you wish, but when I hear you say that I am going to continue to think you are referring to them in terms of their person, rather than the kind of being they are.

If I didn't think that way, I would just think you were mistaken in understanding how they are one..

They (plural) are God (singular).

Edited July 31, 2012 by Ahab

[KevinG]

Ten pages and no one has said "Boy do I KNOW that's TRUE."

[Ahab]

The idea that the Godhead is some sort of corporate "being" like a family is definitely not how "being" is usually understood in conversation and definitely not what classical trinitarianism is. If someone wants to use a "corporate being" as a definition, they better be willing to state it outright rather than playing coy games about what "being" really means.

Perhaps it would help you if I told you that I refer to the kind of being we call "human being" as one being... the being we refer to as human being. In a sense you can say there is more than one human being, but considering the fact that all who are a human being are the same kind of being, and that among all kinds of beings there is only one which we refer to as human being, it's perfectly appropriate and correct to state that there is only one being which is what we refer to as "human being"... just as there is only one being which we refer to as God.

You may choose instead to emphasize that I am talking about a "kind" of being, instead of a being, but I'm using the word being while referring to kinds of being there are while talking about one more specifically.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Ten pages and no one has said "Boy do I KNOW that's TRUE."

I know! What's up with that?

I have said something similar, though, so in essence I have said that.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Ahab

[wenglund]

The incessant barks and nips of the dogmatist are drawing ever nearer. Beware of your heals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

The incessant barks and nips of the dogmatist are drawing ever nearer. Beware of your heals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not worried about bruised heels. Perhaps the dogmatists should worry about crushed heads?

[Ahab]

The incessant barks and nips of the dogmatist are drawing ever nearer. Beware of your heals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dogma is nothing to fear. It's just another word for teaching.

The Teacher is coming, though. Just concentrate on learning from him.

[wenglund]

Dogma is nothing to fear. It's just another word for teaching.

The Teacher is coming, though. Just concentrate on learning from him.

With that, I am now inclined to forget the heals...and best watch where I step.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

With that, I am now inclined to forget the heals...and best watch where I step.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Can we both join hands now and say something like "Beware of false teachers" now?

Kumbaya, Lord. Kumbaya.

[KevinG]

My Karma ran over your Dogma.

[Ahab]

My Karma ran over your Dogma.

There will never be a time when everyone likes the dogma, but the dogma's still good.

[wenglund]

Can we both join hands now and say something like "Beware of false teachers" now? Kumbaya, Lord. Kumbaya.

Count me out. I don't see any room for me in your tiny circle of Ahab-adulation. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Count me out. I don't see any room for me in your tiny circle of Ahab-adulation. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is, though. I don't have to stop loving myself or anyone else to be able to love others. I do love you.

Cue the music, please. I'd like to dance now.

[wenglund]

There is, though. I don't have to stop loving myself or anyone else to be able to love others. I do love you.

Cue the music, please. I'd like to dance now.

That's odd. I could have sworn that you have been dancing since you got here. Perhaps it was just a tick.

But, I should stop now since I can see that the negative attention is encouraging you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Basically the same sort of conversation would apply to those who have problems with history ...someone's character

And any other potential stumbling block, for that matter. These are forms of the mocking and scorn that cause some to cast their eyes about ashamed, and then fall away (per Lehi’s dream). The antidote is to do what Lehi did, which was to cast his eyes about not in shame, but in faith, hope and love to identify his family, see the rod and path, take in the big picture, and preach the Gospel. And of course we are taught to apply secular learning to gospel pursuits (D&C 88:118--Lehi might not have been able to construct his vision without it!). If someone is shaky due to a secular matter, it helps to have someone with some spiritual perspective with regards to countering it secularly so they can be steadied without relying on the arm of flesh.