Holy Ghost: Says Different Things To Different People?

[CurrentlyAlive]

Hey, I've come in the discussion late. Can someone post a link to the original thread everyone keeps talking about?

Thanks!

[wenglund]

While the parable of the blind men and the elephant is not scriptural I think it sheds a great deal of light on the issue of opposing revelations.

Even among those who agree on calling and doctrine it is critical we follow the Lord's plan of councils and individual revelation so that we can all grow in our ability to receive revelation and so we can all contribute our piece of the larger picture.

One of the wisest Bishops I have ever worked with routinely asked me and his other counselor (two wet behind the ears BYU students) what we thought on a particular matter before he added his own insights. In several cases he changed his mind after hearing what we felt about a situation.

The wisdom in this plan is that it not only helps people reach the right decisions but it also grows the people making the decisions.

I was going to mention the parable of the blind men and the elephant, but I am glad you beat me to it. Well said. The blind man who holds the tail of the elephant is given a very different "truth" than the blind man holding the tusk. Not a problem. The differing "truths" in this regard are a matter of differing perspective.

The same is true for God's plan. Metaphorically, some of us may be spiritually position closer to the hind end of the divine elephant, and there we may best learn of his tail, while others of us may be positioned towards the head, or points in-between, and there we may best learn of the tusk and rough skin, and yet others of us may be working our way around the divine elephant and have experienced and received the "truths" of the tail and skin and tusk.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think that what the Spirit of God dictates and leads is dependent on how we each individually respond to God in our personal relationships with Him. A friend of mine put it well, I think. His General Manager for his job said in a meeting that he has to adjust to each person and their personality as means to best provide direction and advice. I'm not a parent but I assume that the same scenario can be applied.

Exactly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

Given around 99.5% of God's children have not/will not be a Mormon in this life, it stands to reason that God is not simply "inefficient" (that's a lot of wastage otherwise) but happy with multiple customisations and personalisations for completing this life and looks to the long term for the next.

There are three kingdoms and many mansions in at least one of them. I do not think it unreasonable to believe that the Gospel is not really going to be acceptable to everyone -- and that is why there are other options of glory.

Nevertheless, there are negative consequences to nations and to individuals for refusing to abide by His Commandments in this life and beyond. And the Lord would that all of His Children would come unto Him. Thus, we are to teach repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those that believe -- we should Baptize. Some won't believe.

Edited April 12, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

You keep saying different rather than contradictory, so what you are saying is true in some sense. If you had said or meant contradictory instead, though, then you'd be wrong and I hope you already realize that.

My use of the word "different" includes seeming contradictions. For example, being told, in one instance, that Jesus wants me for a sunbeam, and told in another instance that Jesus wants me to become like him, reflects different, though not seemingly contradictory "truths." Whereas, being told "thou shalt not kill" and also told "greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend," can in some reasonable respects be viewed as contradictory. Being told the "God is spirit" may rightly seem contradictory to being told "The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bones." I could go on and on, though hopefully you see the point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 12, 2013 by wenglund

[Ahab]

My use of the word "different" includes seeming contradictions. For example, being told, in one instance, that Jesus wants me for a sunbeam, and told in another instance that Jesus wants me to become like him, reflects different, though not seemingly contradictory "truths." Whereas, being told "thou shalt not kill" and also told "greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend," can in some reasonable respects be viewed as contradictory. Being told the "God is spirit" may rightly seem contradictory to being told "The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bones." I could go on and on, though hopefully you see the point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Seemingly contradictory or what can be viewed as contradictory also don't mean the same thing as contradictory. It may be hard to see, sometimes, but all of God's message are in harmony and there is no contradiction to any message he gives for the same circumstances.

For example, the Bible is in harmony with the Book of Mormon, and both are in harmony with the book of Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Some people may think there is some contradiction between them, but there isn't, and all will lead people to the truth regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not all peple may see that truth, however, but the truth is still there to be found.

[mfbukowski]

To me, this is key. And, here, in part, is why:

I suspect that what you and I and others have been expressing, may be difficult for some to accept, and may even strike them as disquieting, because they assume that "truth" is the end towards which we should be striving, rather than the means to the end. If "truth" is the end, then it just wont do for one person to be told one "truth" by the Holy Ghost, and another person to be told a different or seemingly conflicting "truth." I get this.

Whereas, if the end is actually the betterment of ourselves and growing in meaningfulness and fulfillment in our relationships with others (the epitome of which is divinity/eternal families), then it makes perfect sense that there would be different "truths" for different people, and this given that different "truths" will progress different people differently at different times and different circumstances, etc.

What matters, then, as you suggest, isn't that there are divergent messages from heaven, but "...how we interpret the message and bring (or don't bring) it into our lives."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly- it is about who we are in the process of becoming.

[Ahab]

Exactly- it is about who we are in the process of becoming.

Duh. That applies even when we are wrong.

Q: Why didn't I see the truth before?

A: Uh, because that would not have been in harmony with what I was becoming before.

Q: Well do you think accepting more truth might have helped you to become something better than what you were becoming before?

A: Uh, yeah, I guess, but that would not have been in harmony with what I was becoming before.

Q: Well wouldn't you like to become even better than that, better than what you were becoming I mean?

A: Uh, yeah, I guess so.

Q: Well then here's some more truth. Apply it correctly now so you can become something better.

A: Uh, and how do I do that?

Q: By accepting the truth of the message.

A: Uh, and how do I do that?

Q: Ask God for his help. He can help you a lot better than I can.

[CV75]

What think ye?

I am very much in agreement. I think God works in many ways; for this OP, through the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost.

I think the light of Christ draws people to the best options available to them in their earthly environment (both their internal and external environments). The Holy Ghost, through His power, inspires people to the best options that are beyond these earthly environments (the kingdom that "is not of this world"), and also definitely testify of the truthfulness of a principle that cannot otherwise be known or confirmed within the constraints of earthly environments (Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; the Church is restored, the Book of Mormon is the word of God, etc.). The Holy Ghost can further reveal, through His companionship, such things as sanctification, glory and new ways of being (rebirth and formal entrance into the kingdom that is not of this world), but only after the Gift of the Holy Ghost is obtained. God guides, teaches, confirms and establishes for different people different things along the way, but they are all designed to lead us to His presence.

As far as religion goes, I think it is the light of Christ that leads people to the best option(s) and behavior(s) available to them given their temporal, telestial-level conditioning and their level of spiritual development, receptivity, etc., as long as they do not resist it. As long as the Lord permits it, and the person receives it, the Holy Ghost additionally testifies of Christ and then changes us spiritually, not just behaviorally (which is what the light of Christ does).

While "Spirit" can be used to describe both the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost, I do not think the light of Christ actually testifies of Christ, but draws people to recognize the goodness that is inherent in the world Christ created. So Christ will not often be readily recognized or identified with the function of the light of Christ. For some that will include or involve a Christian church, and for others, the next-best thing(s).

I also think, when the Lord sees fit, He will reveal by the power of the Holy Ghost some particular non-religious (philosophical, technological, social, etc.) principle to any receptive vessel for the furtherance of His cause. The Reformation and related technological advancements come to mind.

[CurrentlyAlive]

Hi, I was hoping to catch up on the previous discussion that sparked this thread. Wenglund started by quoting, I believe, PoisonWell, as saying:

"Then what is the first vision to Joseph Smith all about? Doesn't it state in Hebrews 13:8, Mormon 9:9 and DnC 20:12 that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? If so, how come he says different things to different people? Why should anyone pray and expect the Holy Ghost to respond with guidance when it appears that the advice leads in many directions?"

I was trying to find the original thread, but I am having trouble with the search feature (sorry, I'm new). Anyway, this is a topic I have been really interested in right now. Could someone please direct me to the original thread Wenglund was quoting from?

[Ahab]

Hi, I was hoping to catch up on the previous discussion that sparked this thread. Wenglund started by quoting, I believe, PoisonWell, as saying:

"Then what is the first vision to Joseph Smith all about? Doesn't it state in Hebrews 13:8, Mormon 9:9 and DnC 20:12 that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? If so, how come he says different things to different people? Why should anyone pray and expect the Holy Ghost to respond with guidance when it appears that the advice leads in many directions?"

I was trying to find the original thread, but I am having trouble with the search feature (sorry, I'm new). Anyway, this is a topic I have been really interested in right now. Could someone please direct me to the original thread Wenglund was quoting from?

Click on this quote to start where PoisonWell came in. He was wanting to discuss what Wade started this thread to discuss. If I were you I'd skip over everything else except his and Wade's comments, even though there were some other good comments.

Is he talking about the church and it's members? If so, that's just not much of an issue, at least in my experience. The other end of the spectrum has always troubled me: when people treat doubt as a sin. That's more likely to drive people off, in my opinion. Doubt often is treated as a pox at best and has never been given more encouragement than faith, in my experience. Although die-hard skepticism as a rule isn't a good thing, people shouldn't treat doubts with anything but love and open discourse.

I also disagree if he isn't talking only about church members. In the general world, an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage, at least in most communities. Aside from more atheistic countries, you're very unlikely to get derided or punished for your faith, and you certainly won't suffer bodily harm; You'll get killed for expressing doubt in some of the Middle East. And so critical thinking (which is the father of doubt) should be celebrated, especially outside the church, as it should bring people in.

And if doubt was a bad thing,¹ we should never have converts. All people would remain atheists, catholics, etc. If God didn't intend for you to use your mind, he would've given you just a brain stem.

1. I don't think that Elder Holland is saying all doubt is bad, by the way. He seems to be looking for a middle ground, at least from what I've read here. I'd just like to make my view known as some people seem to think that doubt is a sin.

[CurrentlyAlive]

Thank you!

[wenglund]

Thanks for starting this thread, wenglund. Over in the other thread (and in other places on this forum), I had brought up the problem of epistemic reliabilism which includes some discussion of conflicting spiritual evidences.

Reliabilism is a system of knowledge that claims that the mere possession of evidence is insufficient for justifying knowledge. There must also be some level of "reliability" around the source of that evidence. We must be able to verify the source. Typically this means that the evidence must be subject to some external test under the auspices of an "impartial spectator," to use Adam Smith's language. This spectator would ideally not bring any human prejudices to its judgments of the evidence and simply provide us with the qualitative and quantitative information about it. Things not subject to this sort of investigation therefore cannot be justified in the realm of knowledge.

There is much that may be challenged in what you just said, but to keep things manageable and somewhat on topic, let me just say that I see what you are saying.

However, acceptance of your conclusion about what can or cannot be justified in the "realm of knowledge," rest not only on acceptance of your Reliablist premises, but also agreement with your definitions of terms. I have certain qualms with both--at least in relation to certain things.

Even still, Reliablism is useful to me in some aspects of my life (though I haven't necessary called it by that name nor am I all that versed in that topic), and not so useful in others--particularly those of a spiritual and emotional nature. My "system of knowledge" isn't confined to a single epistemology philosophy, and thus not limited by the constraints thereof. And, part of the reason for this is because I am less interested in being "right" (or in finding the "truth") and more interested in what works in progressing me and my relationships with others.

Having said that, let's get back to the issue of this thread, and do so using your "colorblind" analogy. In your analogy you have two sets of people for whom the world has seemingly revealed things in different colors (or "truths"). What is "true" for one group, is not "true" for another.

This may be explained by the fact that the eyes of the one group are different from the eyes of the other group. The "world" may be sending the same message, but it is being interpreted and experienced differently by each respective group. This goes to ksfisher's salient point about "biases" iaffecting interpretation of revelation.

However, your analogy also posits a spectrometer. The thing is, the spectrometer doesn't see the colors like we humans see the color, rather it electronically senses differences in wavelengths of light. It senses one "truth" while we humans sense a different "truth." And, while the "truth" of the spectrometer seems to align best with "truth" sense by most people, and not those we call "colorblind," they are, nevertheless, different, and in some respect, conflicting "truths."

Now, one might ask, which of the differing "truths" is correct--i.e. is a given rose red or is it about 650nm? Well, one may reasonably say, "both." In some respects, this goes to what I and others have been suggesting about differing "truths" from the Holy Ghost.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 12, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Seemingly contradictory or what can be viewed as contradictory also don't mean the same thing as contradictory. It may be hard to see, sometimes, but all of God's message are in harmony and there is no contradiction to any message he gives for the same circumstances.

For the purposes of this discussion among divergent thinkers, it may only be feasible, and useful, to speak in terms of "seeming contradictions."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Hi, I was hoping to catch up on the previous discussion that sparked this thread. Wenglund started by quoting, I believe, PoisonWell, as saying:

"Then what is the first vision to Joseph Smith all about? Doesn't it state in Hebrews 13:8, Mormon 9:9 and DnC 20:12 that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? If so, how come he says different things to different people? Why should anyone pray and expect the Holy Ghost to respond with guidance when it appears that the advice leads in many directions?"

I was trying to find the original thread, but I am having trouble with the search feature (sorry, I'm new). Anyway, this is a topic I have been really interested in right now. Could someone please direct me to the original thread Wenglund was quoting from?

Actually, the quote above was from bcuzbcuz rather than PoisonWell. The quote from bcuzbcuz may be viewed HERE

However, contrary to what Ahab suggested in relation to PoisonWell, I advise you to look first at the post from pmccombs1 HERE, and my response to him HERE. This way you can get the context out of which my and PoisonWell's dispute arose. Part of Poison's problem is that s/he may not have considered my comments in context, and thus didn't correctly grasp my meaning and what I was referring to.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

For the purposes of this discussion among divergent thinkers, it may only be feasible, and useful, to speak in terms of "seeming contradictions."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, it's possible and useful to speak in terms of at least the principle of something being in contradiction to something else. If you think that's too difficult maybe we can speak more in the abstract than by giving specific examples, but I'll still want to get into the principles of being either in harmony or being in contradiction, at least sometimes.

Just because something "seems to contradict" doesn't necessarily mean that it actually does.

[wenglund]

I am heading out of town soon, and may not be able to participate much on this or other threads until I get back on Sunday. Have fun while I am gone.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[pmccombs1]

However, your analogy also posits a spectrometer. The thing is, the spectrometer doesn't see the colors like we humans see the color, rather it electronically senses differences in wavelengths of light. It senses one "truth" while we humans sense a different "truth." And, while the "truth" of the spectrometer seems to align best with "truth" sense by most people, they are, nevertheless, different, and in some respect, conflicting "truths."

Now, one might ask, which of the differing "truths" is correcti.e. is a given rose red or is it about 650nm? Well, one may reasonably say, "both." In some respects, this goes to what I and others have been suggesting about differing "truths" from the Holy Ghost.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, but regarding the rose, there are actually three stories. 1) The Rose is gray (there is no spectrum). 2) The Rose is Red. 3) The mean frequency of light reflected from the Rose is 650nm. 650nm lies in the Red spectrum, as defined. Both "Red" and "650nm" are therefore true (two ways of stating the same thing), but gray is not true for it has been reliably shown that the energy belongs to a spectrum, even though millions of colorblind people witness gray with their own eyes.

I'm interested in species of truth, because I agree there are different kinds of truths. But I suggest that there is a "literal" truth that we attempt to achieve in order to describe reality as it truly is. I there really a God? Is there really an afterlife? Those are some of the harder questions to answer. Are the competing spiritual answers good enough? Good enough for what? Well, for justification that enables some people to be set above others, and to recruit to their cause, and to promote it as the absolute truth. Why would I authorize my kids, who are too young to understand procreation, to start up a Storkers club, to recruit others into it, and to claim that the Birds and Bees people are apostates?

I do think there are other kinds of truths, such as aesthetic or poetic truths. These speak in the context of abstractions, and here I can see room for disagreement between competing truths. They can disagree and still both be correct at the same time, because they both operate in different universes. But as these are abstract truths, they don't necessarily apply to the literal destiny of Man.

With religious truth, I expect something of a continuum. Daymon Smith put it nicely (if a little cynically), when he recently wrote about "continuing revelation":

When the Brother of Jared calls Jesus a god of truth, and so he can have faith, he surely does not mean that his words are being sent out to many millions, who recognize his voice because it was broadcast from Mount Zerin, on a certain day, with a monotone inflection full of smarmy quotes and patches from the scriptures, and that they are subject to change by being called “continuing revelation.” By “continuous” do we often mean, that which supplants, replaces, or alters the previous thing in the sequence? If I told I had continuing disease, would you think I meant I had syphilis the clap, then gonorrhea, then liver cancer, and then the flu? Or would you think I had a disease which had some consistency beyond disease-ness, some quality that was the same besides being disease? Just so: continuing revelation should not supplant nor replace: that is discontinuous, by definition. It should continue to add light and knowledge, not simply swap out a 45 Watt bulb for a 30 Watt one, and then a red one because times have changed. Continuing light should be continuous, a continuum, not an interrupted, punctuated supplanting and alteration whenever times demand a change. So the voice of truth must be same, in quality, and not simply saying the same things over and over again, until some new program requires a change in the content.

In terms of the Holy Ghost, I believe something along these lines makes sense. To one, the Spirit declares that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, and that the Church he restored is the true Church of Christ. Another one hears the voice of the Spirit, and with its zeal burning in her bosom, it commands her to get herself up to the Rock of His Church--the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to be precise--and to forsake the heretical and false teachings of her former Mormonism. Both feel that they have received "an hundred fold" and continue in the way that God has set them. Not only that, but they seek to sway others out of their "wrong" paths and are often no small cause of contention within their own spheres of influence.

I am talking about the phenomenon of the Spirit saying, "A = True" and also (maybe simultaneously), "A = False." If we're talking abstract truths in different realms of truth, fine. I understand that some concrete truths are also contextual. Sometimes it is true for me to say "It is raining outside," but not always. But if a gospel is thought to be a real, eternal, and immutable thing, then some other anti-gospel can't be true at the same time, or even next week or the year after. I'm going to cast some doubt on the argument that says God is simply giving people what they need for their personalized curriculum when He he thus sets them against each other. I raise the question of whether the Holy Ghost justifies organized, proselytizing religion when, by the same simple formula, one may have a witness of any Church one desires.

Edited April 12, 2013 by pmccombs1

[mfbukowski]

Duh. That applies even when we are wrong.

Who taught thee that thou wast naked?

Who taught thee to think so one-dimensionally? Same person.

[Ahab]

Who taught thee that thou wast naked?

Who taught thee to think so one-dimensionally? Same person.

I don't like this side of you, mski. I need a hug, or a kiss, or for you to use your little gray cells to speak to my heart.

I never have thought in only one dimension.

[sethpayne]

I don't know. I suppose God could tell people different things. His ways are not our ways. I had someone tell me that they prayed about the Book of Mormon and the Holy Ghost told them not to join the Mormon Church.

I told them not to join then.

They said, "But why would God tell me one thing and you something else"

I said, "I don't know but for some reason God does not want you in His Church".

I had a very similar experience on my mission. An investigator prayed and prayed ... she WANTED to get a "this is true!' answer. It didn't come. In fact, she felt that she should not join.

My companion and I then prayed about it as well since we were perplexed. Funny enough, the impression came that we shouldn't argue with the Spirit.

[mfbukowski]

I don't like this side of you, mski. I need a hug, or a kiss, or for you to use your little gray cells to speak to my heart.

I never have thought in only one dimension.

Well I would explain it if you would listen, but I have not seen you do that. You have to learn what someone says before you can discuss it fully- and you won't listen long enough to learn. You are always right and everyone else is wrong. You seem threatened by seeing things in a new way.

[mfbukowski]

I had a very similar experience on my mission. An investigator prayed and prayed ... she WANTED to get a "this is true!' answer. It didn't come. In fact, she felt that she should not join.

My companion and I then prayed about it as well since we were perplexed. Funny enough, the impression came that we shouldn't argue with the Spirit.

Hey I didn't realize you went to NYU- my address when I lived in Nuevo Jork was 33 Washington Square West.

[Ahab]

Well I would explain it if you would listen, but I have not seen you do that. You have to learn what someone says before you can discuss it fully- and you won't listen long enough to learn. You are always right and everyone else is wrong. You seem threatened by seeing things in a new way.

For example....

There's no need for you to say things that aren't true for you to try to make your own points. Pull that beam out of your own eye.

[sethpayne]

Hey I didn't realize you went to NYU- my address when I lived in Nuevo Jork was 33 Washington Square West.

I did! Finished up my MBA there in 2010. LOVE the area .... always fun to walk through Wash. Sq. Park and just people watch.

Also, there are tons of funky little restaurants around Astor Place.

Alas, now I am back in Seattle. I miss NYC but I don't miss the taxes.