Best Evidences For And Against The Church Being True...

[Hamba Tuhan]

Trust me on this, I was the most spiritual person I have come across to date.

No doubt you are just that humble, too.

[Alvino]

I also wanted to add to my post above that an engineer who never rode the roller coaster who is stopping a non-engineer as he gets off the ride, and tries to convince the rider "You really didn't have any fun!" or something; the rider would look at him crazy. It's up to the rider's own judgment.

Of course, the roller coaster we are all on is life, so we can approach it how we like and what makes the most sense to us; and again, no one else not in our shoes can really tell us anything. This goes both ways.

Bad way to close yourself to other ideas and conversation. Of course we can (and probably should in some cases) tell people what they should do, though probably not force them to do it. Exhibit A, you telling me how God is and how you think it's best to live our lives within religion.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

No doubt you are just that humble, too.

Right! Because I consider being spiritual in the way Mormons normally take it to be as a virtue. That's why I'm still a Mormon and not an atheist, of course.

Those were just my tendencies. Nothing to be proud of in that.

[Stargazer]

18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him.

Hah! I missed that one. Too bad nobody took notes about what he talked with them about.

[Alvino]

Hah! I missed that one. Too bad nobody took notes about what he talked with them about.

You said they really weren't philosophers. The account says they were, and some specific type of philosophers. Paul spent quite a bit reasoning with people that didn't agree with him on religion. Heck, I think even LDS believers would appreciate the effort your leaders don't really make.

[Maidservant]

And this is just a dogma on the part of believers.

That reply I made was my understanding, through my own personal experiences, about how God works (in me) and I was sharing it with you. I daresay there are many 'believers' who would disagree with me. Also I was making no comment whatsoever on religion. God and religion are not the same thing at all (or as I understand).

I shared it with you since it seemed to me that you were taking an informational approach and had a question on how God would give you something, I was trying to suggest that perhaps the 'giving' wasn't on the informational axis. It was simply an offer for another take on the situation. If it doesn't resonate with you, it makes no difference to me. I actually thought I was being helpful. You have nothing to prove to me.

By the way, I don't identify myself as a believer and I don't identify you as an un-believer. So if you like those categories and they make sense to you, fine. But they aren't mine.

Never have I felt the 'Spirit' more deeply and strongly than as an atheist, and, trust me on this, I was the most spiritual person I have come across to date.

I didn't know we were discussing "the Spirit" and I didn't make any comment on that. For the record, I could tell you a long story about my journey in life and as regards God that has absolutely nothing to do with the Spirit or as I understood it at the time.

I trust everything you tell me about yourself. If you feel 'the Spirit' or whatever word you personally like to use, then I trust that you have. I don't need you not to be an atheist. I am not the one invested with this. I was answering your question. Perhaps it wasn't a real question for your life; perhaps it was meant to be only an academic question. But I personally have a hard time having purely academic discussions, I talk about experiences. So I'm glad you've share yours here.

I am not the one setting up the 'atheist'/ 'religion' situation. You have done that and have assumed that this is my point of view and so I feel like you are arguing or disussing from a 'versus' frame that I simply don't participate in. If I did say something that offended you, I can only apologize.

It also sounds like you are already on the 'ride', ha ha, which I believe I acknowledged anyway. I just wonder that you don't acknowledge it in me.

The only thing that pushes believers to believe they have a monopoly on religious experiences is that they want it, or need it, to be so.

I never said this. I was answering a question that you said why doesn't God give you deeper mysteries. I was showing you how I found out for myself. If I misunderstood your question, I can only apologize.

On what basis do you assume that I think that I have a monopoly of religious experiences? That I even characterize human experience into categories of 'religious experience' or not?

I do admit that I have a bias to an experiential approach to life; and I don't appreciate an informational approach to life, I find it limiting. That's a decision I made for myself, and, yes, I was trying to share that with you since I personally find the experiential approach so satisfying; forgive me for wanting to share that with you, since you seem to have experienced it as an attack on my part. Which I won't participate in attacking someone, so, what do I do now?

With my roller coaster metaphor, I was trying to demonstrate the difference between informational and experiential approaches to knowledge (of any matter; including that of God [or not God]). I was not demonstrating the difference between atheism and religion. I wouldn't do that, since I don't consider them to be opposing or even different experiences. The only experience I acknowledge is the human experience. As human beings, we choose and create and identify our own world, including whether or not we choose God. So last I checked, you and I were both humans, so to me that's the same 'religion'.

If you have a different way of looking at it, that's fine. I have nothing invested in it. Just was discussing an option.

To be clear, I just used "atheists" to get a group we would agree isn't looking for revelations from God.

Okay, thanks, your definition is helpful so that I can know more what you mean. I left out atheist due to everything I explained above as it is a non-category for me. But I know that many people self-identify as atheists, so I let people tell me who they are and then I am willing to call them what they want to hear or know about themselves. My only category is 'human being'. Although I will sometimes use others when handy; but words so easily become barriers to understanding as often as helps to understanding.

So now I think I understand that, about yourself, you are a person who isn't looking for revelations from God. I acknowlege and respect that, and I don't need you to be living like that. So I guess when you ask, about God giving you deeper mysteries, it was completely academic, and there was no point to my sharing at all. Although my explanation can be thought of academically also--simply that there may be another approach to knowledge other than informational and that God 'giving' is not along the axis of informational.

It is true that I live my life always in seeking for the revelation of God. I want him (?) revealed to me, yes.

But I think we would still misunderstand each other on the details of what 'seeking for the revelation of God' is. So even if I say, yes, that's who I am, I still think you could not understand me and who I am because of how you are seeing what that seeking is from your point of view, is not how I am living it from my point of view. Definitions are so crucial!

The major problem I have with this view of yours is that it is totally disconnected from actual Church practice, teaching, and history which is what I was asking about.

I agree that I am an unusual person, and that many Mormons would not agree with me or even understand me, ha ha, but all the things I think and do have arisen out of my understanding of the scriptures, temple, prayer as I have been taught it in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That has been my journey, and until I learn otherwise, it will continue. For the record, I often think about whether I should leave the Church in terms of growth (like a snake leaving behind old skin to receive new). BUT for me, at least, if I ever choose to do this, I would do it with the experience of moving closer to GOD, not a choice to move farther away from God. So, yes, that's me and my life and approach.

Unusual, yes. Totally disconnected? No. I am just as much a product of the Church as anyone else is, because the elements that are in the Church (scriptures, temple, etc) have produced a one like me just as much as they have produced anyone. That is where I have come from. I have not come from anywhere else. So if I and all my thinking and believing and feeling and choosing exists--it exists because of the Church, and my response as a being to it.

Are you going to tell me now that D&C is a collection of non-information God gave to Joseph? BoM? Ten Commandments?

Yes, actually, I am.

The scriptures have an informational aspect. That is the first read. It also functions as a barrier for those who aren't ready for more. It can be beneficial. But it is incomplete and manages to have holes in it because it isn't the full purpose of the scriptures.

But scriptures (temple, etc)--their fundamental nature is symbolic. (Please do not equate symbolism with fiction, or as I use the term.) Symbolism by its very nature, places the reader in an experiential position. I find it rather miraculous myself, the device of symbolism; it creates a virtual world for a people who don't have the computer technology for virtual worlds yet. Of course, some passages are highly symbolic (i.e. Adam & Eve) and some perhaps less so (passages in the D & C about how to build the Nauvoo House). But I don't know that there is any scripture devoid of symbolism.

Understanding symbolism requires keys and again, it places you in a certain position, from which position you see certain things that were un-seeable from another position.

I don't know how else to talk about this, but I know I'm not being clear.

Quite often a person might be arguing on informational aspects and it is difficult to give any answer when one has the unlocked symbolic knowledge at their disposal. It's impossible to put it across unless you are in the same position. You can call that arrogance, but to me, it's simply the case.

That was what I was trying to show in the roller coaster idea. Position is everything.

A person can accept or reject religion. I am not invested in your choice. I think religion can have God in it. I think religion can be an affront to God. It's not a one size fits all.

However, in order to challenge religion completely (or as I think), one has to have been in the positions that allow you to see what you are challenging, and these are available experientially (symbolically). Otherwise, the discussion is between two sincere people but who otherwise don't speak each others' "language".

God told Adam and Eve a bunch of information:

Not to eat from the tree.

If they eat from the tree they'll die.

That from now on they would have to work.

That the woman would hurt when having a baby.

Etc.

This is the kind of information that I was talking about.

And this is the kind of experience I am talking about.

While certainly there are those who subscribe to religion who accept this passage informationally, there are just as many religionists who understand this passage symbolically/experientially (i.e. what can be used in real, daily living to transform themselves as beings). So it's not about religion/not religion.

What is the tree?

What is the eating?

What is the death?

etc.

Bad way to close yourself to other ideas and conversation. Of course we can (and probably should in some cases) tell people what they should do, though probably not force them to do it. Exhibit A, you telling me how God is and how you think it's best to live our lives within religion.

I think you must know that my object lesson was NOT: close yourself off to other ideas and conversation.

I think you must know that my object lesson was NOT: never share something with other people.

I think you must know that my object lesson was: we cannot walk in another's shoes (although certainly we should empathetically try). we cannot know what their journey is simply because we aren't the one having it.

And I disagree with you that we can or should tell people what to do. That may be just me, but I have a very strong feeling about that. I don't think most people have enough understanding about walking in another shoes in order to give them any real advice, so silence is best. My approach is to acknowledge and confirm what people know and decide for themselves.

Of course, in the context of this forum, I have an assumption that we are already in the process of sharing ideas and that the participants already consent to that, so I haven't in the past worried about sharing.

I did not tell you how God is. Only you can know that. I shared with you how I think knowledge works (including knowledge of God). I thought I could share. Was I wrong? Did I misunderstand your question (about getting deeper mysteries)? Surely I was unclear in my expression, that happens a lot.

I did not tell you how I think it's best to live our lives within religion. I couldn't have told you that, because I don't think that.

Thank you, Alvino, for taking the time to reply and discuss these ideas with me. Thanks for the feedback and the opportunity to think through a few more things.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Maidservant

[Stargazer]

You said they really weren't philosophers. The account says they were, and some specific type of philosophers. Paul spent quite a bit reasoning with people that didn't agree with him on religion. Heck, I think even LDS believers would appreciate the effort your leaders don't really make.

Well, I was going to drop this, and meant my response to be a kind of salaam, but...

I am guilty of reading not closely enough when I posted that scripture where the words "epicurean" and "stoick" occur. My focus narrowed in on the fact that he tried to engage the idlers who crowded the Areopagus on the "Unknown God" and basically got brushed off when trying to give what amounted to a Conference talk, and I missed the bit about the epicureans and the stoics. But you posted a different translation with different wording. The KJV says he "encountered" the epicureans and the stoics and these gents took him to the Areopagus where the conversation with the idlers occurred, and the brushoff. The wording of the version you posted specifies that he had conversation with the philosophers (and just in case you are missing it, I am admitting you are correct about the philosophers). But their reaction doesn't sound too much like he had some zingers (i.e. profundities) for them:

And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

And it doesn't sound like the "conversation" lasted very long before Areopagus, and he was "babbling" the same General Conference talk at them, too, by the evidence.

I don't doubt that there has been a General Authority or two who has conversed with a philosopher and tried to do the same thing Paul did, with the same outcome. And there's no evidence that Paul spent "quite a bit" discussing things with them. I wonder what the Greek original says, because while the translation you quoted says "conversing", the KJV translators used "encountered".

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stargazer

[Alvino]

And it doesn't sound like the "conversation" lasted very long before Areopagus, and he was "babbling" the same General Conference talk at them, too, by the evidence.

Acts 17:¹⁷ "So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present." How many days? I don't know but it seems that quite a few to me.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Alvino

[Nathair/|\]

I still can't imagine anything more profound anyone could say than Elder McConkie's last testimony I already quoted.

[Stargazer]

Acts 17:¹⁷ "So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present." How many days? I don't know but it seems that quite a few to me.

Whatever. We don't know what he said, whether it was profound or not -- profound according to your specifications, or any other. Maybe he was so down to earth that that amazed the philosophers to the point that they said within their hearts, "Almost, Paul, thou persuadest me to be a Christian". Or maybe they were so full of their philosophical selves that they snickered at him and discounted everything he said.

Question: why is it so important to you that GA's must be profound in order for the LDS Church to be true? And that since they aren't, it can't be?

[Alvino]

Whatever. We don't know what he said, whether it was profound or not -- profound according to your specifications, or any other.

Huh! For the second time, Stargazer, I never intended to say he was profound there but only that the image you portrayed was wrong. Paul debate with a bunch of people liberally.

Question: why is it so important to you that GA's must be profound in order for the LDS Church to be true? And that since they aren't, it can't be?

It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition - yet most good pieces of evidence are neither necessary nor sufficient. That doesn't mean it is irrelevant or that it can be evidence for or against the legitimacy of God's power to provide insight. All I was trying to say was that it seems to me that the general authorities are not particularly insightful and that I think we would expect it to be so generally if truly they had this contact with God. In a sense Mormons seem to feel this way and that's why General Conferences are interesting (besides the announcements). There just isn't anything at all that I can point to in the general authorities that tells me they are God's mouthpiece.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Alvino