Holy Ghost: Says Different Things To Different People?

[Storm Rider]

I appreciate your viewpoint, but it sounds like you are backing off of the "One True Church" doctrine in favor of an ecumenical viewpoint. I have no problem with that.

This thread is about the Holy Ghost saying different things to different people. I come from the perspective of the Holy Ghost saying different things to a single person: me. What ought to be done about that? And secondarily, what are we to make of the conflicts that arise between people to whom the Holy Ghost has said "different things?" If God tells one man his church is true, and also another man that his church is true, does God really expect these two people to understand that this communication means something other than that their respective churches are exceptional? Does God really hope that these two, both confirmed by the Spirit (or so they claim), are to get along and accept each other's claims at face value? You said yourself, "Truth is not relative; what is true for one will always be true for another."

All I'm hearing by way of answers seems to be, "Yes, other people hear the Holy Ghost and are Led by Him. But they don't have as much of the gospel as we do. We are the exception to this, our understanding is correct and we are sure of this. We are exceptional." Well, how do we know? I'm happy with mfbukowski's pragmatism whenever it is introspective. But when it compares itself to others, saying we have more and they less, I'd like to have some justification for that. That would be awfully helpful to untangle the mixed signals that seem to be coming from God.

I am not sure my main points are clear. First, God does not say two churches are true. He may say you are good where you are at for now, but that is all. No church, not even the LDS Church, has a corner on the market on truth. We have truths that can lead to exaltation, but we do not have all truth. It is clear to me that the keys of the priesthood are found within the Church, but I am also clear that this life is not exclusively about ordinances, it is about learning to live, to emulate Jesus Christ. Becoming true disciples is where is perfectly clear we as a church have a long way to go and that we can learn so much from other churches and religions. I don't think I fit the ecumenical label too much; I am not interested in all the churches joining into one church or to be led by one leadership. I am more than happy praying with other people, learning from them, supporting them in their discipleship. I don't think it is necessary for them to join the Church per se; it is more important for them to know they are doing what God wants them to do. This is the very definition of being "hot" as discussed in Revelations. I know LDS who have lived a life time in the church, held callings, been leaders, gone to the temple, etc., and yet have very little understanding of discipleship or of Christ's love. In my mind I accept that the ordinances of exaltation will be obtained by every soul that has ever lived on this earth; that is doctrine, that is truth. Knowing this, I am not as concerned about one's membership in the Church. I am very concerned about how I or others follow Christ. I am not as interested in what "you" say as what you do. In closing, I reject any concept or belief that assumes God is an author of confusion or that the Holy Spirit states conflicting things about what is true. It is impossible for this to occur and for God to exist. It is absolutely clear that humans can confuse what God is saying to them. Telling me "this teaching is true" does not equate to this church is true. Telling me that John Paul II was a great man, an inspired man, a man of God is not telling me the Catholic Church is the true Church. Telling me that Jesus is the Christ does not make the Southern Baptist church true; it makes Jesus true; it tells me God works in the lives of individuals to bless others; it tells me that each must be a student of truth and to thresh all that is there and implement as much truth in our life as possible.

[mfbukowski]

You have heard the distinction between the experience and the cause of experiences. If I touch your brain at certain places you may feel as if you are getting out of your body. Does that mean you are getting out of your body? Probably not.

I really had to come back to this absurdity- so many think that this is somehow relevant to the subject at hand, and many are misled by such silliness. Just see the posts which followed this one for evidence.

Imagine what it is like to have brain surgery. Imagine the EXPERIENCE.

You are scared for weeks about how this will go. Maybe you will die. You arrive at the hospital in a hopeful mood. You are prepped for surgery, head shaved etc.

You see the anesthetist and are wheeled into the operating room and placed on a table amid mountains of electronic equipment.

With you conscious, they open your skull. You hear the whir of the saw as they cut it. Then they start poking, looking for exactly the right location to avoid damage to important brain areas.

They ask you to report what you are seeing/feeling. One spot is stimulated and you hear a portion of Beethoven's Ninth.

Do you actually think they have wheeled an orchestra into the operating room??

Do you doubt for one second that someone is sticking his finger into your brain which brings about this memory??

Of course you don't.

When you go to the movies and there is a war scene, do you crawl under your chair so you don't get shot? Somehow do you know what is "real" and what is not?

When you awake from a dream and see your room around you, have you ever really thought that the monster was still going to catch you??

These kind of experiences happen every day and yes, some people think they are "real"

We call that "mental illness" and "psychosis" for a reason.

And as far as the "cause" for experience I would refer you to Hume's discussion on causality.

Here is the Readers Digest version:

Next, Hume distinguishes between relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas are usually mathematical truths, so we cannot negate them without creating a contradiction. Matters of fact are the more common truths we learn through our experiences. We understand matters of fact according to causation, or cause and effect, such that our experience of one event leads us to assume an unobserved cause. But Hume argues that assumptions of cause and effect between two events are not necessarily real or true. It is possible to deny causal connections without contradiction because causal connections are assumptions not subject to reason.

We cannot justify our assumptions about the future based on past experience unless there is a law that the future will always resemble the past. No such law exists. We can deny the relationship without contradiction and we cannot justify it with experience. Therefore, we have no rational support for believing in causation. Hume suggests that our assumptions are based on habit, not reason, and that, ultimately, our assumptions about matters of fact are based in probability. If experience teaches us that two events occur together repeatedly, we will assume a link between them. So, Hume explains, we must be able to reduce all meaningful concepts to the simple impressions on which they are built. Since no simple impression of causation or necessary connection exists, these concepts might appear meaningless. Rather than dismiss these assumed connections entirely, however, Hume acknowledges their usefulness and limits them to being nothing more than simple observations of repeated conjunction between two events. Further, he concludes that if there is no cause and effect, then our actions are not predetermined, and we enjoy true free will.

One cannot prove logical connections between "causes" and "effects"- only correlations. And proving the existence of a "cause" of experience which is itself unexperienced is impossible.

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/section4.rhtml

Edited April 25, 2013 by mfbukowski