Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[Calm]

I think he was addressing this to multiple individuals.

He talked about our spiritual mind and our physical mind....which seems to imply he thinks we have more than one type of mind and thus more than one mind. I am just wondering if he means this or is more talking about the spiritual qualities of our minds in comparison to the physical qualities of them.

It is one of my pet peeves in psychology but don't really know how to get away from doing it, our minds and bodies and emotions are not really separate, but all one but we talk about them as if we could divide them apart or they have independent existence.

[harfad]

Do you really believe we have more than one mind?

I do. The scriptures talk about a carnal or natural mind as well as a spiritual one. Here is a list of verses I found by searching for "carnal mind"

Romans 8:7

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Alma 30:53

53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.

Alma 36:4

4 And I would not that ye think that I know of myself—not of the temporal but of the spiritual, not of the carnal mind but of God.

Doctrine and Covenants 67:10

10 And again, verily I say unto you that it is your privilege, and a promise I give unto you that have been ordained unto this ministry, that inasmuch as you strip yourselves from jealousies and fears, and humble yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am—not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual.

Doctrine and Covenants 67:12

12 Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind.

Note especially D&C 67:10, which contrasts carnal mind with spiritual mind. This suggests that man has two kinds of minds, a carnal or natural mind and a spiritual mind, just as he has a natural body as well as a spiritual one.

[harfad]

It is one of my pet peeves in psychology but don't really know how to get away from doing it, our minds and bodies and emotions are not really separate, but all one but we talk about them as if we could divide them apart or they have independent existence.

You can look at it this way. As a Mormon I presume you accept that man has a spirit which predates his body, and is a complete man with a mind independent of his natural body. He had agency before he was born into mortality. Think of that as the spiritual mind, or mind of his spirit. Now look at the natural man, his body. It also has a mind independent of his spirit called the brain. It manifests all the characteristics of an independent mind. It can be investigated by medical science, and its various properties identified. We know where the memory part is, and which pare has to do with emotions, personality etc. People can suffer memory loss, or experience personality change as a result of brain damage. All of this takes place in the natural mind, not the spiritual. The spirit is mot hurt in a car accident, only the body is. All of this suggests that man has a natural and a spiritual mind, and they are two different things.

[pogi]

Yep that's exactly the problem. He's asserted his position as "true" without explaining why or how it is or how we could even know either.

Hello kettle, by rejecting my position and upholding the opposite, are you not asserting that your position is "true" without explaining how we could know?

I have given many why's and how's.

He also stated that mystics misinterpret their experiences.

Point? Do you really think that someone who has never heard of Christian doctrine would correctly identify the Holy Ghost as the Holy Ghost? Of course they are going to use their cultural upbringing to explain such impressions.

Edited November 19, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

He also stated that mystics misinterpret their experiences.

That just does not work at all then. He needs some Wittgenstein. This book could change his life and the lives of everyone who reads it. And it is here in one click and totally free. It doesn't get better than that. http://gormendizer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf

[pogi]

That just does not work at all then. He needs some Wittgenstein. This book could change his life and the lives of everyone who reads it. And it is here in one click and totally free. It doesn't get better than that. http://gormendizer.c...estigations.pdf

Please read previous post.

[volgadon]

Point?

You have significantly undermined your position. You claim that there is a universal mystical experience. Your criteria for defining this is that the experience must be true. You also state that mystics misunderstand their own experiences. I have shown that the gospel recognizes the existence of convincing counterfeits (see also the angel of light scriptures and the one on shaking hands). So, you can talk about a universal mystical experience, but that position is weak as you haven't provided specific examples of mystics who fit this universal experience. However, if you do provide an example, you'll have to show weighty evidence that the example is true, as you consider that the mystic's own understanding can't be trusted, and I've demonstrated the concept of counterfeits.

[mfbukowski]

He talked about our spiritual mind and our physical mind....which seems to imply he thinks we have more than one type of mind and thus more than one mind. I am just wondering if he means this or is more talking about the spiritual qualities of our minds in comparison to the physical qualities of them.

It is one of my pet peeves in psychology but don't really know how to get away from doing it, our minds and bodies and emotions are not really separate, but all one but we talk about them as if we could divide them apart or they have independent existence.

The solution to this is the distinction between subjective and objective I have been trying to make. They are two separate viewpoints neither of which is more valid than they other- they are just viewpoints.

If you see a pyramid from the side it is a triangle (say). If you see it from above it is a square. Which is right? Both of them- from different viewpoints.

Is the mind physical? Yours is- from my perspective because I cannot see what you see, but I see how you act and speak etc. I see the physical manifestations of your mind at work.

But you internally know what you are thinking, which cannot be known by anyone else

Is the mind physical or mental/spiritual/phenomenological? Both- just as much as the pyramid is a square and a triangle- and many other shapes as well- from different viewpoints.

[volgadon]

Point? Do you really think that someone who has never heard of Christian doctrine would correctly identify the Holy Ghost as the Holy Ghost? Of course they are going to use their cultural upbringing to explain such impressions.

The question is, if you can't trust their understanding of the experience, how can you be sure that they are describing what you think they are describing? Pandora is more than a radio station!

[mfbukowski]

Hello kettle, by rejecting my position and upholding the opposite, are you not asserting that your position is "true" without explaining how we could know?

I have given many why's and how's.

Fair enough! But so have I.

You haven't been here long but my posts rely on rejection of Cartesian dualism and the correspondence theory of truth and the notion that words represent "things" beyond what we can experience.

My posts reflect an underlying acceptance of what can loosely be called a "Pragmatic Theory of Truth" insofar as such a thing exists- because it is essentially a denial that there "is" truth outside of sentences.

It views truth as a property of sentences and propositions- not as correspondence.

I believe that Cartesian dualism is an outmoded way of thinking about truth which is incompatible ultimately with Joseph's restoration and that is exactly what I am trying to show in this thread.

I think Cartesian dualism really was deficient in its understanding of language and how we use it and in the last 700 years philosophical understanding of that question has actually improved.

So yes, you are right- ultimately we are both making assumptions about truth and the nature of reality, but I am aware of mine and you do not appear to be. What I am arguing is the foundation of your assumptions about these issues and you have not addressed my underlying assumptions- and to do so we would be re-arguing the entire history of philsophy.

I have had this discussion before with Miserere Nobis and he gets that. He knows what his assumptions are and what I mean when I bring up those different assumptions and we have kind of agreed to disagree on those points. Reasonable people get to do that and maybe we are now at that point.

But I think that you are not aware that your assumptions about truth are indeed based on 700 year old philosophy. Because it's old that doesn't mean it's "wrong" but on the other hand these points have been discussed for 700 years by the best minds on the planet, and not being aware of that could be a problem for one who relies on those assumptions.

And yes, we are all brothers here and in many ways speak the same language of personal revelation. But when we get down to slicing and dicing, that is another matter.

Hopefully we know that these discussions have nothing to do with "our salvation" and that we are far beyond discussing major areas of disagreement. We are pretty much discussing here how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and the nature of speaking about such issues in the first place.

None of this is worth getting upset over- but one does question if it is worth wasting the time on when we could be out doing our home teaching or talking with non-members, or other valuable activities as I said before, like playing video games.

Honestly that is about as seriously as I take all this.

Edited November 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

You have significantly undermined your position. You claim that there is a universal mystical experience. Your criteria for defining this is that the experience must be true. You also state that mystics misunderstand their own experiences. I have shown that the gospel recognizes the existence of convincing counterfeits (see also the angel of light scriptures and the one on shaking hands). So, you can talk about a universal mystical experience, but that position is weak as you haven't provided specific examples of mystics who fit this universal experience. However, if you do provide an example, you'll have to show weighty evidence that the example is true, as you consider that the mystic's own understanding can't be trusted, and I've demonstrated the concept of counterfeits.

Are we not all LDS here? I think that we can all agree that all cultures and people are entitled to, and experience from time to time, divine inspirations and counterfeits. You want me to prove that other's experiences are true or divie? You are deviating from my point. I am starting to feel like I am arguing with atheists here. You know I can't do that. I could use the same rediculous argument with you. Prove that they are not divine. It is not my intention to prove which experiences are divine or counterfeit, simply that they exist within every culture. My argument is based on the agreed upon foundation that they happen outside of Mormonism. Are you refuting the fact that if the Holy Ghost or light of Christ is involved in the experience, it is divine? That is what I mean by "true." I am not going to argue over specific examples and decide if it was divine or not. I don't need to do that to argue my point. The fact that they happen outside of Mormonism is sufficient to prove my point. Other's are experiencing this same phenomenon of the Holy Ghost or light of Christ. The question that you keep deviating from is: do we all experience it the same? That is something that I am willing to discuss and have attempted to address, but you keep deviating.

[pogi]

More to come

Edited November 19, 2012 by pogi

[volgadon]

Other's are experiencing this same phenomenon of the Holy Ghost or light of Christ. The question that you keep deviating from is: do we all experience it the same? That is something that I am willing to discuss and have attempted to address, but you keep deviating.

Post #381.

I could use the same rediculous argument with you. Prove that they are not divine.

I don't have to do so. I'm not the one equating mysticism with "true" experience, nor am I claiming that mystics don't understand their own experiences. So, if discussingmystical experiences, you have to show that they are a "true" experience before we can call it mysticism. However, since you have called into question the mystic's crediblity, you can't really use their description, so how else are you going to substantiate your claim?

I'm perfectly content to use evidence within its limitations and discuss phenomena as they appears in the writings and teachings of specific mystic traditions.

[volgadon]

Do you have a response?

Can we really know God as He is if we do not experience Him as He is?

No. Do all mystics experience him as he is? Not by a long shot.

[pogi]

I don't have to do so. I'm not the one equating mysticism with "true" experience, nor am I claiming that mystics don't understand their own experiences. So, if discussingmystical experiences, you have to show that they are a "true" experience before we can call it mysticism. However, since you have called into question the mystic's crediblity, you can't really use their description, so how else are you going to substantiate your claim?

I'm perfectly content to use evidence within its limitations and discuss phenomena as they appears in the writings and teachings of specific mystic traditions.

I don't have to do so either. We both agree on what a true experience with God entails: a) Holy Ghost or b) Light of Christ.

I don't need to use a mystic's description to substantiate my claim. The scriptures substantiate my claim that all are endowed with the light of Christ and are not prohibited from experiences with the Holy Ghost. Therefore, I am confident that other's outside of Mormonism are experiencing the same divinely inspired phenomenon as I am.

If you want to equate mysticism with experiences with the divine, the adversary, and all physiological phenomenon, all you are really doing is defining all human experience as mystic.

Edited November 19, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

I don't have to do so either. We both agree on what a true experience with God entails: a) Holy Ghost or b) Light of Christ.

I don't need to use a mystic's description to substantiate my claim. The scriptures substantiate my claim that all are endowed with the light of Christ and are not prohibited from experiences with the Holy Ghost.

See, straight up I see those as Mormon descriptions. Yes we have to have descriptions and clearly those words define the Mormon view just as some Islamic description would define the specific Islamic sect from which tradition it comes.

We define experiences with words we know. We have no choice and that is true for Mormon descriptions as well as all the others.

But the bottom line is that I know God defined those Mormon descriptions for me personally because those descriptions were the best I had available at the time that God chose to give them to me. Those words that you used won't even have the same exact meanings for other Mormons who do not speak English! Strictly speaking it could even be argued that each of us has our own understanding of words and that is why we have disagreements like this one, over words.

Even the three of us with our different backgrounds etc each understand these words slightly differently. The word "substance" or "mind" I am positive means something different to me than you guys- I have spent years studying those stupid words. "Knowledge" would be another one- and I could go on.

No one seems to understand how I use those words although it is frustrating as heck for me because when I write something it is perfectly clear to me and then someone asks what I mean by a word- it drives me nuts!

So who's conception of what description represents TRVTH etched in marble, eternal and unchanging? None of them because such a "thing" doesn't "exist" and that includes the LDS description.

The LDS description works just fine for us- we know what we mean by "bearing a testimony" or "receiving" a testimony or what signs and tokens are and the difference and what the Holy Ghost means because we all speak pretty close to the same "language"

But start talking about how each of us feels the Holy Ghost and trust me, we will be in foreign territory just as we would if we tried to discuss how each of us (pardon the cliche) experiences the taste of salt or how we know we are in love.

Do you love your mother? Do you love your wife/girlfriend/significant other? Do you love your siblings? Do you love your bishop? How do you know?

All these sensations are different to each of us and so will be their descriptions.

And we expect our descriptions of our experiences of God to be the same?? Not going to happen. How can you say one is "true" and the other not? You can't.

All you can know is your own personal certainty that you had an experience and say with Joseph that "I knew it and I knew that God knew it".

That's about all you can say about it.

[pogi]

See, straight up I see those as Mormon descriptions. Yes we have to have descriptions and clearly those words define the Mormon view just as some Islamic description would define the specific Islamic sect from which tradition it comes.

We define experiences with words we know. We have no choice and that is true for Mormon descriptions as well as all the others.

But the bottom line is that I know God defined those Mormon descriptions for me personally because those descriptions were the best I had available at the time that God chose to give them to me. Those words that you used won't even have the same exact meanings for other Mormons who do not speak English! Strictly speaking it could even be argued that each of us has our own understanding of words and that is why we have disagreements like this one, over words.

Even the three of us with our different backgrounds etc each understand these words slightly differently. The word "substance" or "mind" I am positive means something different to me than you guys- I have spent years studying those stupid words. "Knowledge" would be another one- and I could go on.

No one seems to understand how I use those words although it is frustrating as heck for me because when I write something it is perfectly clear to me and then someone asks what I mean by a word- it drives me nuts!

So who's conception of what description represents TRVTH etched in marble, eternal and unchanging? None of them because such a "thing" doesn't "exist" and that includes the LDS description.

The LDS description works just fine for us- we know what we mean by "bearing a testimony" or "receiving" a testimony or what signs and tokens are and the difference and what the Holy Ghost means because we all speak pretty close to the same "language"

But start talking about how each of us feels the Holy Ghost and trust me, we will be in foreign territory just as we would if we tried to discuss how each of us (pardon the cliche) experiences the taste of salt or how we know we are in love.

Do you love your mother? Do you love your wife/girlfriend/significant other? Do you love your siblings? Do you love your bishop? How do you know?

All these sensations are different to each of us and so will be their descriptions.

And we expect our descriptions of our experiences of God to be the same?? Not going to happen. How can you say one is "true" and the other not? You can't.

All you can know is your own personal certainty that you had an experience and say with Joseph that "I knew it and I knew that God knew it".

That's about all you can say about it.

If I am going to be disputed any time I use the word Holy Ghost, or light of Christ in a "Mormon dialogue" forum to define my experiences and other's experiences with the divine, because they are inadequate descriptions, then We are not going to get very far are we?

You are proving my point that it cannot be described in words. Of course we are not going to use the same words or descriptions to describe our experiences with the divine, we are going to relate those experiences with what we know from our cultures. This has been my point the whole time. That is why if we, as LDS members, each used words to describe our experiences with the Holy Ghost, we might get some funny looks, as you point out, because words are inadequate. Yet, somehow we know that we are experiencing the same Holy Ghost. Words are misconceptions and inadequate symbols of God. For example: you use a Polish word (I believe it was) to describe God. That word may indeed be a better symbol to describe what he actually is, but it is still inadequate. Simply because you like that word and I like the word God, doesn't demonstrate that we are experiencing different phenomenon. God cannot be experienced in word, but in spirit. I trust that we have both felt that spirit and know what I am talking about. If I knew what your polish word means, I might agree that it is a better description, but my emotions are tied to the word God. In other words, my sense of God defines the word God for me, the word God does not adequately define my senses of him, as you have pointed out. Indeed, our concept of God will differ from one to the next, and thus our overall experience of God will differ because culture fills in what we don't know, and thus our perspectives will be different. However, there are few fruits of the spirit that are not common among men who are true to the light which they have been given.

The words Holy Ghost, and light of Christ might not have the same meaning intellectually to everybody, even within the church, but they will have the same fruits spiritually. If it is by the spirit that we recognize truth, I certainly hope that we experience it the same, so as to be able to share with others how to recognize it. Sometimes we have to use words (as inadequate as they are), and yet others recognize it still. It's kind of amazing how that works. It is amazing that we can all be "one" in purpose and spirit, and yet relate somehow. I guess that is the question. Do we relate through words, or through spirit? Are we unified as children of God through word or spirit? As words are inadequate symbols of deeper meaning, it would be impossible to fully understand, or relate to someone through words only. I suggest that we relate through spirit. We bond through common spirit, even the light of Christ and the Spirit of God. If there was not a common experience underlying spiritual words, I don't think that union, bonding, oneness, compassion, and understanding would be possible.

I believe that others will recognize the same feelings that I will feel when Christ returns, even if they don't know his name or have any intellectual concept of Him, they will recognize him from their experiences with him, as he is. I think that there is scriptural evidence of this. If you want specific scriptures, I'd be happy to look for them. I have experienced it many times on my mission. It is a common practice for missionaries to identify promptings of the Holy Ghost. We know what they are feeling, because we feel it too. We are bound in love by it, I believe that it is the same love from the same God. Again, I think there is much scriptural evidence for this. Obviously, God's love manifests itself in many different ways, but again, few that are not common among men who are true to the light which they have been given.

Edited November 19, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

Imagine God as a puzzle, with each piece representing a fruit of the spirit or manifestation of him. We each may hold different puzzle pieces at times, and thus have unique experiences and different perspectives of God. Thus, our overall experience of Him will differ from individual to individual, and from culture to culture. I am not talking about our overall experience of Him though. Yes, culture and ritual play a huge role in how we experience God as a whole. The problem is, we don't experience God as a whole, rather, line upon line, or piece by piece to fit my analogy. We fill in the gaps with the traditions of man. And so, call him by different names, use different rituals of worship, or claim contrasting doctrines, or deny him altogether. Yet, we all hold fundamental pieces in common that we recognize as good, and thus we relate with one another in spirit, and bond with one another in love. We all have overlap. It is required that we experience those common pieces the same, or we would not experience God as he is when the puzzle is all put together. We have to experience those pieces the same in order to be like him. In order to be one with him and one with each other.

This is the "welding" that Joseph Smith talked about in my previous post. We are to "weld" all of these "pieces" together into one great whole. Each piece is a glimpse of God, not in his fulness, but it is a glimpse of the same God that I see from another perspective. So, when I say that we experience Him the same, I mean that we experience the overlap the same, and will one day experience Him in His fullness the same, because we will be like Him.

Edited November 20, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

As a continuation. Because we don't see him in his fullness. We may incorrectly interpret what we do have, in order to make a cohesive and meaningful picture of the whole. This is usually done based upon cultural experiences. That's how our minds work. We see dots on a screen and fill in the spaces with something that makes sense to us, something that is familiar to us. In relation to God, we may misunderstand what the dots are really trying to show us and thus misunderstand them, and yet be able to relate to others through the individual dots, if not through the whole picture. Even though they have different concepts of what those dots really are trying to show.

Edited November 20, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

That is why if we, as LDS members, each used words to describe our experiences with the Holy Ghost, we might get some funny looks, as you point out, because words are inadequate. Yet, somehow we know that we are experiencing the same Holy Ghost. Words are misconceptions and inadequate symbols of God. For example: you use a Polish word (I believe it was) to describe God. That word may indeed be a better symbol to describe what he actually is, but it is still inadequate. Simply because you like that word and I like the word God, doesn't demonstrate that we are experiencing different phenomenon. God cannot be experienced in word, but in spirit. I trust that we have both felt that spirit and know what I am talking about. If I knew what your polish word means, I might agree that it is a better description, but my emotions are tied to the word God. In other words, my sense of God defines the word God for me, the word God does not adequately define my senses of him, as you have pointed out. Indeed, our concept of God will differ from one to the next, and thus our overall experience of God will differ because culture fills in what we don't know, and thus our perspectives will be different. However, there are few fruits of the spirit that are not common among men who are true to the light which they have been given.

The words Holy Ghost, and light of Christ might not have the same meaning intellectually to everybody, even within the church, but they will have the same fruits spiritually. If it is by the spirit that we recognize truth, I certainly hope that we experience it the same, so as to be able to share with others how to recognize it.

You can hope that we experience it the same, but there is no way of knowing that and that is precisely the point. Maybe we do and maybe we don't. We do not experience anything "as it is" including God. Do you really think we can experience God in his fullness in this life? I know you do not. We are not in a position to compare one word to another because that implies we have some frame of reference and we do not. We only have our cultural conditioning.

Again and again I see the Cartesian dualism represented here - that there are things which we experience and then magically symbolize them in language- that language corresponds to "reality". But as I have said, that position implies that we can see reality as it is and then somehow abstract it "correctly" or "incorrectly" and we cannot do that simply because we cannot experience "reality" directly.

Sometimes we have to use words (as inadequate as they are), and yet others recognize it still. It's kind of amazing how that works. It is amazing that we can all be "one" in purpose and spirit, and yet relate somehow. I guess that is the question. Do we relate through words, or through spirit? Are we unified as children of God through word or spirit? As words are inadequate symbols of deeper meaning, it would be impossible to fully understand, or relate to someone through words only. I suggest that we relate through spirit. We bond through common spirit, even the light of Christ and the Spirit of God. If there was not a common experience underlying spiritual words, I don't think that union, bonding, oneness, compassion, and understanding would be possible.

I agree that there is something that runs deeper than words- I don't doubt it. But that proves my point!!!

IF IT RUNS DEEPER THAN WORDS, WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT IT. That means we cannot say if it IS "the same" or different. We cannot say that one feels a "true" spirit and another a "false" spirit. IT IS UNSPEAKABLE! I don't disagree for a minute that the spirit is unspeakable in trying to convey and that probably we feel the same thing. But you cannot know that rationally and you cannot speak about what runs deeper than words!

I believe that others will recognize the same feelings that I will feel when Christ returns, even if they don't know his name or have any intellectual concept of Him, they will recognize him from their experiences with him, as he is.

No they will recognize the light of Christ- to use Mormon language- not HIMSELF IN HIS FULL GLORY AS HE IS. Their perceptions will be filtered by being imperfect humans. Yes they will feel his influence even as we do, but not in his fullness. I could express this philosophically as well- we can never experience "reality as it is" but only as we see/feel/experience it.

I think that there is scriptural evidence of this. If you want specific scriptures, I'd be happy to look for them

Not necessary, I do read the scriptures too you know. We disagree on their interpretation.

I have experienced it many times on my mission. It is a common practice for missionaries to identify promptings of the Holy Ghost. We know what they are feeling, because we feel it too. We are bound in love by it, I believe that it is the same love from the same God. Again, I think there is much scriptural evidence for this. Obviously, God's love manifests itself in many different ways, but again, few that are not common among men who are true to the light which they have been given.

But see that last sentence contradicts the rest. Not all are given the same light! There are many who post here to say they have never felt the spirit. I don't believe that- do you? And why do you have to teach people what the spirit is, if all feel it the same? The fact is you are teaching them the name of what you call "The Spirit". Why don't they just know spontaneously?

And the fact is, in those situations, you see their faces, you see tears and you tell them that that is the "spirit". But in fact you have no clue exactly what precise sensation in their individual hearts caused those physical manifestations. You do not know the "reality as it is" that they have felt- in effect you are teaching them that the physical manifestations are the "spirit". Critics see that flaw in the argument and say that we teach that an emotional response is identified by the spirit- that any movie which one finds touching or tear jerking is a manifestation of the spirit.

You and I both know that this is not true- but the fact is the ARGUMENT is a persuasive one because all we know about what others are feeling is the physical manifestations which are the same in observing someone feeling the spirit and in someone touched by a sentimental movie.

The phenomenology is different we presume, because we experience the difference ourselves but we cannot feel their phenomenological response but can only diagnose what they are feeling through their symptoms.

[mfbukowski]

Imagine God as a puzzle, with each piece representing a fruit of the spirit or manifestation of him. We each may hold different puzzle pieces at times, and thus have unique experiences and different perspectives of God. Thus, our overall experience of Him will differ from individual to individual, and from culture to culture. I am not talking about our overall experience of Him though. Yes, culture and ritual play a huge role in how we experience God as a whole. The problem is, we don't experience God as a whole, rather, line upon line, or piece by piece to fit my analogy. We fill in the gaps with the traditions of man. And so, call him by different names, use different rituals of worship, or claim contrasting doctrines, or deny him altogether. Yet, we all hold fundamental pieces in common that we recognize as good, and thus we relate with one another in spirit, and bond with one another in love. We all have overlap. It is required that we experience those common pieces the same, or we would not experience God as he is when the puzzle is all put together. We have to experience those pieces the same in order to be like him. In order to be one with him and one with each other.

This is the "welding" that Joseph Smith talked about in my previous post. We are to "weld" all of these "pieces" together into one great whole. Each piece is a glimpse of God, not in his fulness, but it is a glimpse of the same God that I see from another perspective. So, when I say that we experience Him the same, I mean that we experience the overlap the same, and will one day experience Him in His fullness the same, because we will be like Him.

This actually is identical to Nagel's view of "objectivity"- we all get a piece of the puzzle of the experience of Antarctica, say, and the full collective human experience of all that is know about it makes up what we know about Antarctica but even all that will not exhaust all that there is to know about Antarctica. Tomorrow an ice flow will break off or snow will fall, and there will still be more to learn.

We will never experience God in his fullness until perhaps we are like him.

Now we see him through a glass darkly but THEN face to face. We cannot know him "as he is", only as we experience him especially in this life, and we cannot ever really know how how others experience him.

So it sounds like we are saying the same thing, but neither of us are right. It's all only words.

Edited November 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

I agree that there is something that runs deeper than words- I don't doubt it. But that proves my point!!!

IF IT RUNS DEEPER THAN WORDS, WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT IT. That means we cannot say if it IS "the same" or different. We cannot say that one feels a "true" spirit and another a "false" spirit. IT IS UNSPEAKABLE! I don't disagree for a minute that the spirit is unspeakable in trying to convey and that probably we feel the same thing. But you cannot know that rationally

It looks like we both believe that there is a common spirit that runs deeper than words. One that probably feels the same, Using your own words. Why all the fuss?

Edited November 20, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

Bukowski, I am troubled by your approach to this whole debate, knowing now that you have believed the same as me. I have admitted several times that there is no way of proving that I am right. I am simply throwing out a theory. One that you just admitted that you believe is probably right.

Instead of recognizing a common belief and searching for evidence to substantiate the theory, you argue on the side of the opposing view point. That makes no sense to me. Not only do you argue for the opposing view point, but you use an argument that is equally useless in which ever direction you point your finger. Volgadon equally cannot prove that we don't feel the same fruits the same way. Therefore, your point does no good to substantiate nor refute either theory, It just gets in the way. They are both theories only. All we can do is use the teachings of the GAs and scriptures, with some reasoning to support our theories. We can never prove them. That is how Mormon dialogue should work.

I haven't even begun to dig into the scriptures and quotes of the GAs to support the stance that we do feel the same fruits the same way. Now, if you would like to help me, I think that we can make a much stronger argument, as I can that think of a wealth of scripture and quotes that support my theory over Volgadon's. I understand that interpretations of scriptures and quotes may vary, but that is the fun of it.

Edited November 20, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

So it sounds like we are saying the same thing, but neither of us are right. It's all only words.

Why can we not be right? Because it's all only words?

Edited November 20, 2012 by pogi

[TAO]

Pogi, the point of Bukwoski's point is that we can never assert that we feel the same thing as being undeniably true. We can believe it; but we cannot assert it is undeniably true and that anybody who believes otherwise is speaking nonsense. That is what I think he means.

Edited November 20, 2012 by TAO