Holy Ghost: Says Different Things To Different People?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Got mugged once walking home from Astor Place station at midnight in '72 or '73- lotsa laughs

It was an exciting time!

But I loved it and miss it- I get back there every once in a while- last time was 2 years ago or so- lots of very good changes, but then as you say, the taxes are prohibitive as is the cost of living in general.

Edited April 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

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

I grew up in Stuyvesant Town (late 50s - 60s)! Parents took art classes at NYU (and took the kids to the Metropolitan Museum of Art). They were pretty cube but dug the palette axe.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

delete. I honestly don't have the energy right now ......sorry.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Kerry A. Shirts

[volgadon]

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.

I frequently use the example of the colorblind. Those who share colorblindness all have evidence to make the same erroneous claim about certain colors that they can't sense reliably. Their witness is at odds with those who are not colorblind and who make opposing claims about those colors. How can we tell who is right? We have to go to the source and use an impartial spectator to measure the information coming from that source. A spectrometer is just such an instrument. It can classify the source wavelengths according to definitions and reveal the "truth" of the matter. It isn't swayed by arguments or appeals, or by having lived in a culture with a certain color narrative.

There is analogy to be made with the Holy Ghost.

Does the "truth" that the Holy Ghost communicated to a person represent actual reality?

If another person (or even the same person) receives an opposing witness, how can his or her witness also represent reality?

Or is one wrong and one right?

Are the two witnesses qualitatively similar?

How can we know?

How can we know the source of these witnesses?

Could different sources produce the same quality of witness? E.g. Under hypnosis, a person can experience religious feelings that are similar to feelings felt in Church or in other religious contexts. In one case, the source of this feeling is a hypnotherapist, and in the other case it is allegedly from God... or is it?

I'm not opposed to the ideas that wenglund has suggested, but I realize that it is a faithful response to the problem that does not consider another, more parsimonious and wholly faithless possibility: That in fact the spiritual "sense" is not a sense as such, but rather a natural product of the emergent system that is the human brain. We can reliably verify sources of other "empirical" senses, but not the source of the spiritual sense. The fact that this sense does not reliably convey the same view of reality to adherents of different religions suggests that it is more a reflection of their cultural and religious narratives than of objective reality. The upshot of this is that the spiritual sense cannot justify knowledge because it is purely subjective and unreliable in a broad context (I agree with a comment Ahab made about its reliability in an individual context. Well, mostly agree--I happen to be one who receives conflicting witnesses, a situation which I ascribe to my propensity for doubt and skepticism).

But even within a faithful context, I think the argument needs to be developed. I understand that sometimes parents will give a different story to their children, depending on the capacity to receive and understand. Perhaps we tell very small children about the stork who visits parents with new babies, but older children must learn about the "birds and the bees." In some cases, we're providing a story that simply fills the need for information while withholding a reality that one is not prepared to comprehend. Let us admit that these myths we traditionally use with children do not represent what we understand to be objective reality. Some critics who do not use such stories call them "lies." Are they lies? Does God tell his very immature children lies that help them to develop to their full potential?

We all want the honest truth at some point. Presuming the existence of God, how do we know if we are the children who are getting the Santa-Clause myths, or if we are the grown-up who are getting the straight story? Does Mormonism represent "growing up," or does Catholicism or some other religion tell a more "adult" story that is in line with the way things really are? Would conveying certainty about a certain viewpoint and encouraging others in that same narrative by traditions and expectation be a sort of injustice because it prevents their development along

other potential lines to greater truth?

The inherent flaw in reliabilism is differing perspectives. One simply cannot get around that, and any assesment of reliability will, to one degree or another, be subjective. A great illustration of this is H. G. Wells' short story, The Country of the Blind. http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/3/ Briefly put, someone stumbles across a place in the Andes where the inhabitants have been born blind for generations. The man is convinced that his ability to see gives him an unparalleled advantage over the inhabitants. Not only is he unable to adapt to their way of life, the blind, like those in Plato's allegory, are convinced that he is mad, and in order to be cured his eyes must be gouged out... No spectrometer in the world would be able to arbitrate that dispute.

[dgd]

This bit from President Monson got my attention during Conference.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/obedience-brings-blessings?lang=eng

Throughout the ages, men and women have sought for knowledge and understanding concerning this mortal existence and their place and purpose in it, as well as for the way to peace and happiness. Such a search is undertaken by each of us.

This knowledge and understanding are available to all mankind. They are contained in truths which are eternal. In Doctrine and Covenants section 1, verse 39, we read, “Behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever.”

The poet wrote:

Tho the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst,

Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,

Eternal, unchanged, evermore.¹

Some would ask, “Where is such truth to be found, and how are we to recognize it?” In a revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith at Kirtland, Ohio, in May of 1833, the Lord declared:

“Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come. …

“The Spirit of truth is of God. …

“And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

“He that keepeth [God’s] commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.”²

What a glorious promise! “He that keepeth [God’s] commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.”

There is no need for you or for me, in this enlightened age when the fulness of the gospel has been restored, to sail uncharted seas or to travel unmarked roads in search of truth. A loving Heavenly Father has plotted our course and provided an unfailing guide—even obedience. A knowledge of truth and the answers to our greatest questions come to us as we are obedient to the commandments of God.

I also like this quote from an Elder Bednar talk that I listened to recently:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/that-we-may-always-have-his-spirit-to-be-with-us?lang=eng

In our individual study and classroom instruction, we repeatedly emphasize the importance of recognizing the inspiration and promptings we receive from the Spirit of the Lord. And such an approach is correct and useful. We should seek diligently to recognize and respond to promptings as they come to us. However, an important aspect of baptism by the Spirit may frequently be overlooked in our spiritual development.

We should also endeavor to discern when we “withdraw [ourselves] from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in [us] to guide [us] in wisdom’s paths that [we] may be blessed, prospered, and preserved” (Mosiah 2:36). Precisely because the promised blessing is that we may always have His Spirit to be with us, we should attend to and learn from the choices and influences that separate us from the Holy Spirit.

The standard is clear. If something we think, see, hear, or do distances us from the Holy Ghost, then we should stop thinking, seeing, hearing, or doing that thing. If that which is intended to entertain, for example, alienates us from the Holy Spirit, then certainly that type of entertainment is not for us. Because the Spirit cannot abide that which is vulgar, crude, or immodest, then clearly such things are not for us. Because we estrange the Spirit of the Lord when we engage in activities we know we should shun, then such things definitely are not for us.

I recognize we are fallen men and women living in a mortal world and that we might not have the presence of the Holy Ghost with us every second of every minute of every hour of every day. However, the Holy Ghost can tarry with us much, if not most, of the time—and certainly the Spirit can be with us more than it is not with us. As we become ever more immersed in the Spirit of the Lord, we should strive to recognize impressions when they come and the influences or events that cause us to withdraw ourselves from the Holy Ghost.

Taking “the Holy Spirit for [our] guide” (D&C 45:57) is possible and is essential for our spiritual growth and survival in an increasingly wicked world. Sometimes as Latter-day Saints we talk and act as though recognizing the influence of the Holy Ghost in our lives is the rare or exceptional event. We should remember, however, that the covenant promise is that we may always have His Spirit to be with us. This supernal blessing applies to every single member of the Church who has been baptized, confirmed, and instructed to “receive the Holy Ghost.”

We should also endeavor to discern when we “withdraw [ourselves] from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in [us] to guide [us] in wisdom’s paths that [we] may be blessed, prospered, and preserved” (Mosiah 2:36). Precisely because the promised blessing is that we may always have His Spirit to be with us, we should attend to and learn from the choices and influences that separate us from the Holy Spirit.

[tyler90az]

"The Savior constantly watched and listened to those He taught, adjusting His teaching to the needs He perceived. For example, after teaching the Nephite people, He said, "Go ye unto your homes, and ponder upon things which I have said"(3 Nephi 17:3). However, just as He was to leave, "he cast his eyes round about again on the multitude, and beheld they were in tears, and did look steadfastly upon him as if they would ask him to tarry a little longer with them" (3 Nephi 17:5). He perceived their needs and stayed longer to minister to them and teach them."

Teaching, No Greater Call

[canard78]

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

Thanks!

It's the thread discussing Elder Hollands talk on doubt (stuffing a turkey). The topic got into the question of 'what if two people have spiritual experiences that contradict.' Around here is where the question was first asked by pmccombs1:

[pmccombs1]

The inherent flaw in reliabilism is differing perspectives. One simply cannot get around that, and any assesment of reliability will, to one degree or another, be subjective

That is simply the flaw in all epistemology. Reliabilism seeks to minimize it by finding some sort of external, impartial validation of subjective evidence. This is meant to compensate for "differing perspectives." It's true that there can be no complete objectivity, as I have said elsewhere, but "reliable" is not the same as "certain." Subjectivity exists by degrees as you just said yourself; it is thought that our measuring and sensing machines are useful for revealing truth more reliably than human experience alone. In other words, reliabilism seeks to reduce the degree of subjectivity. The fact that subjectivity can't be eliminated altogether is no reason to throw out a system that still seeks to be as objective as possible when establishing knowledge.

. A great illustration of this is H. G. Wells' short story, The Country of the Blind. http://www.online-li....com/wellshg/3/ Briefly put, someone stumbles across a place in the Andes where the inhabitants have been born blind for generations. The man is convinced that his ability to see gives him an unparalleled advantage over the inhabitants. Not only is he unable to adapt to their way of life, the blind, like those in Plato's allegory, are convinced that he is mad, and in order to be cured his eyes must be gouged out... No spectrometer in the world would be able to arbitrate that dispute.

Yes, a wonderful story of how certainty breeds cruelty. Is the moral of the story that the truth of those blind people was ultimately justified in the end? Or is it that, because the arrogant, seeing man failed to find an advantage in a culture of blindness, therefore he didn't really have a valid experience of reality? Is it thus an indictment of reliabilism? Hardly! It is an argument in favor of reliabilism. Reliabilism condemns both parties equally: the blind for being unjustified, and the seeing for being, well... unjustified. Under reliabilism, both are obliged to investigate the claims of the other as impartially as they know how. So, this is just the case that reliabilism seeks to overcome. When it encounters something new or contrary, it doesn't assert certainty. It asks, "how can this be verified and clearly demonstrated in a way that is impartial? Is the currently accepted norm justified?"

It may be that there is no way to verify a claim. Perhaps the blind people don't have the tools to investigate the seemingly outrageous claims of the Outsider. Or the seeing man is too proud to close his eyes and discover new experiences to to test and seek to understand. These must remain in second or third-order ignorance. What then? Is it eye-gouging time? No. It just means that there is a new possibility in the universe of ideas; a new untestable hypothesis that is kept on the shelf until some avenue of reliability opens up. It need not adopt the new idea, nor punish it. In such cases, the agnostic approach is superior; it may choose to express a preferred belief, or one that presents the best subjective evidence (which is sometimes the most reliable available), but it stops short of declaring "gnosis." It avoids the language of the True Believer. It may say, "It is likely," or "it is nearly certain," or even "I believe!" But it is ever humbled by the corollary, "I may be wrong."

[mfbukowski]

The central insight I think may be that all that anyone knows or can talk about is something that has been experienced by a human being.

If humans cannot experience it, it is not "real".

In fact what we know as "reality" is simply the pool of all that humans have experienced and communicated through language, including math as a language.

But included in that realm is what is subjectively experienced as well- even though science limits itself to what is objective.

But imagine if we could "see" with sonar, as dolphins or bats, or smell radioactivity or actually feel the strength of electric current safely by holding it in our hands as we might feel the strength of a stream of water. Suppose we could hear the rumblings within the earth itself and know when an earthquake is coming or see the conditions which will form into a tornado long before it happens.

What would it be like to be such creatures? To see in infrared and see the patterns of radio waves reflecting off objects as we see colors?

How different would what we call "reality" be? How different would our languages be with words to describe the tones of the rumbling of the earth and the subtle colors of radio waves? What poems could we write about sunsets if we saw every spectrum of electromagnetic energy radiating from the sun?

How "real" are those colors compared to what we see now? How real are those sounds? Yet for us, such things don't "exist"- there IS no such color- such things do not "exist" such words do not exist.

All we know is what humans know and have experienced, there IS no "beyond" what we can know.

What sadly limited but infinitely proud creatures we are!

[canard78]

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-

Here's a question when you're back. Elder Callister in priesthood session mentions the calling of a Stake Clerk who initially declines the calling. The SP insists saying no-one else will do it as he's had a revelation that its only this person that God wants.

What if the prospective stake clerk had prayed about it and got the answer 'no?' What then? Who is getting the wrong answer?

If we believe in leaders having the ability to get revelation on the members' behalf, what role is there for conflicting personal impressions?

[Glenn101]

Here's a question when you're back. Elder Callister in priesthood session mentions the calling of a Stake Clerk who initially declines the calling. The SP insists saying no-one else will do it as he's had a revelation that its only this person that God wants.

What if the prospective stake clerk had prayed about it and got the answer 'no?' What then? Who is getting the wrong answer?

If we believe in leaders having the ability to get revelation on the members' behalf, what role is there for conflicting personal impressions?

Maybe the stake clerk needed to talk to Jonah. <grin>

Glenn

[pmccombs1]

Here's a question when you're back. Elder Callister in priesthood session mentions the calling of a Stake Clerk who initially declines the calling. The SP insists saying no-one else will do it as he's had a revelation that its only this person that God wants.

What if the prospective stake clerk had prayed about it and got the answer 'no?' What then? Who is getting the wrong answer?

If we believe in leaders having the ability to get revelation on the members' behalf, what role is there for conflicting personal impressions?

I thought about that talk. I think our notion of "calling" is a little strange. The Catholics talk about vocation, and they have a similar thing where people are "called" to missions or to some charitable cause within the Church or without, or to the priesthood, etc. The difference? Catholics hear their own callings and respond to them. Maybe somebody realizes that the idea of preaching the gospel has been growing on his mind lately, and he begins to think it is just what would make his life complete and meaningful. So he enters the service of God.

Other people apparently hear the Mormon's calling, and deliver it to him or her, who is often surprised and a little consternated about it. How nice would it be if we, like the Catholics, could hear our own callings and be drawn to them?

Anyway, it's probably off topic, and besides, now I've had to go out of character. I'm supposed to be promoting reliabilism and the problem of unreliable witness.

[Flyonthewall]

The central insight I think may be that all that anyone knows or can talk about is something that has been experienced by a human being.

If humans cannot experience it, it is not "real".

In fact what we know as "reality" is simply the pool of all that humans have experienced and communicated through language, including math as a language.

But included in that realm is what is subjectively experienced as well- even though science limits itself to what is objective.

But imagine if we could "see" with sonar, as dolphins or bats, or smell radioactivity or actually feel the strength of electric current safely by holding it in our hands as we might feel the strength of a stream of water. Suppose we could hear the rumblings within the earth itself and know when an earthquake is coming or see the conditions which will form into a tornado long before it happens.

What would it be like to be such creatures? To see in infrared and see the patterns of radio waves reflecting off objects as we see colors?

How different would what we call "reality" be? How different would our languages be with words to describe the tones of the rumbling of the earth and the subtle colors of radio waves? What poems could we write about sunsets if we saw every spectrum of electromagnetic energy radiating from the sun?

How "real" are those colors compared to what we see now? How real are those sounds? Yet for us, such things don't "exist"- there IS no such color- such things do not "exist" such words do not exist.

All we know is what humans know and have experienced, there IS no "beyond" what we can know.

What sadly limited but infinitely proud creatures we are!

This brought to mind the movie Phenomenon with John Travolta...

[Calm]

Maybe somebody realizes that the idea of preaching the gospel has been growing on his mind lately, and he begins to think it is just what would make his life complete and meaningful. So he enters the service of God.

Similar to missions in the LDS faith.

[pmccombs1]

Similar to missions in the LDS faith.

Among the older people, I think. It's more of a mandate that animates our youth, in spite of the fact that many of them look forward to the opportunity to serve. It's not like there's no room for vocation in the LDS church, but it isn't our modus operandi. Leadership issues the call, and it is accepted on the principles of faith and loyalty rather than of vocation. But I digress.

[pmccombs1]

The central insight I think may be that all that anyone knows or can talk about is something that has been experienced by a human being.

If humans cannot experience it, it is not "real".

I would say rather, it is not "known."

What would it be like to be such creatures? To see in infrared and see the patterns of radio waves reflecting off objects as we see colors?

How different would what we call "reality" be? How different would our languages be with words to describe the tones of the rumbling of the earth and the subtle colors of radio waves? What poems could we write about sunsets if we saw every spectrum of electromagnetic energy radiating from the sun?

That we lack these advanced systems that are present in other creatures, and in the machines we make, is one of the arguments atheists use to cast doubt on divine design. Why don't we represent the sum-total of all the most advanced systems in existence? Why are we so primitive in some areas?

[Brian 2.0]

First off... LOVE this thread. One of the biggest questions I grapple with. And I'm impressed by the all the thoughtful responses. Sad that Wade left town but hopefully he'll read the replies when he get back.

The question for me is how far this "personalized curriculum" can vary. Can the teachings contradict if the end result is a "better person"?

Say an honest seeker of truth comes to feel that Jesus was not the Christ, but a good teacher, Satan doesn't exists, etc. And this realization helps them become a better person. Believing in the world this way makes them feel happier, more charitable to others, more at peace... more "christlike" even though they don't believe in Christ. Can this person have been led on this path by the Holy Ghost? Could the Holy Ghost be leading them to a place where they will be the happy and "better", and then eventually working Christ back into their beliefs?

I may be wrong, but from my reading Ahab would think this not of the Holy Ghost because it is contradictory teaching, whereas Wade might think it can be from the Holy Ghost because the end result is a more Christlike person.

[Brian 2.0]

an additional thought...

If we are to believe in a world where the HG can teach varied personal curriculum, even as far and leading people into other religions that best serve that persons individual needs, in order to help them towards being more godlike... then we must be open to the possibility that we as LDS are one of the "other" religions that God is using. Just as the HG could be utilizing belief in other religions to make people more Christlike... A Supreme Being could be using Christianity to make people more Budda-like.

How could you know that all roads lead to Christ and the Restored Gospel? Perhaps this small LDS religion is there to provide a path to Christ's teaching for people that would not do well in the Catholic church, which is actually where God's Priesthood Authority rests and all roads will lead to that?

[mfbukowski]

I would say rather, it is not "known."

That implies that it is not our eyes and brains which create what we call the color "red"- that redness exists somewhere out there waiting to be found.

But it's not. It is how we perceive a certain wavelength of light. "Red" does not exist independent of our perceptions of it.

The same with "tables" and "chairs" and everything else- where is there "Tableness" existing independent of humans?

We can use a rock to be a "table" - there is something "out there" - no doubt- but when we use a rock as a table- it IS a table.

It is the human context which makes things what they are- at least to us. There are no tables or wheels in nature- there are not even "round things" until we are here to define what "round" means.

[canard78]

an additional thought...

If we are to believe in a world where the HG can teach varied personal curriculum, even as far and leading people into other religions that best serve that persons individual needs, in order to help them towards being more godlike... then we must be open to the possibility that we as LDS are one of the "other" religions that God is using. Just as the HG could be utilizing belief in other religions to make people more Christlike... A Supreme Being could be using Christianity to make people more Budda-like.

How could you know that all roads lead to Christ and the Restored Gospel? Perhaps this small LDS religion is there to provide a path to Christ's teaching for people that would not do well in the Catholic church, which is actually where God's Priesthood Authority rests and all roads will lead to that?

Personally, I'd be very comfortable with that being the case. I believe there is one path back to God but different vehicles are provided. People usually consider their vehicle to be the best or most effective one. And yes, that provides the chance that Mormonism will turn out to be one of many. Are we to presume that until 1830 there were no other effective vehicles?

In 1978, the first presidency, under President Kimball said:

The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

The great nations beyond the west have not been 'left in the dark for 5,000 years.' As you asked in your previous post. These principles can, if followed, make them more Christlike without believing in Christ. Or perhaps they are all systems (or vehicles) for making us more Godlike even if we know Him by different names.

Or... perhaps even if we don't think He's there at all. If Atheism triggers a belief in the individual that the only opportunity to make a difference to their family, their community, the generations to come was in their mortal life and not in some dream of a millennial celestial hereafter... then the belief may well be 'fit for purpose.'

Devotion to God is manifested through loving and serving others. That principle was taught time and again by Jesus Christ. So whatever 'mode of action' is used, the 'being' is more important than the specifics of what we believe.

[canard78]

Maybe the stake clerk needed to talk to Jonah. <grin>

Glenn

I know you jest... but the assumption of course is that the stake clerk, not the stake president is in error. If the stake clerk prayed and got a 'no, not for you' then who was wrong.

The Stake Clerk example keeps it lighthearted. And this is a nice cosy subject if we reassure ourselves that it means all children are guided and helped.

What happens when someone else's inspiration or perception of guidance puts them into conflict with others. I'll avoid the cliche of the suicide bomber. But what if I tell my family, Lehi-like, we have to move to a city but the rest of the family don't want to or don't feel inspired to. Should I leave them behind and follow my perceived inspiration?

Personalised curriculum work when they are kept personal and don't impose on someone else. But isn't it going to sometimes be inevitable.

What if Nephi had gone up to the mountain to check on Lehi's vision to leave Jerusalem and had been told (or thought he was told) 'no go.'

[pmccombs1]

That implies that it is not our eyes and brains which create what we call the color "red"- that redness exists somewhere out there waiting to be found.

But it's not. It is how we perceive a certain wavelength of light. "Red" does not exist independent of our perceptions of it.

The same with "tables" and "chairs" and everything else- where is there "Tableness" existing independent of humans?

We can use a rock to be a "table" - there is something "out there" - no doubt- but when we use a rock as a table- it IS a table.

It is the human context which makes things what they are- at least to us. There are no tables or wheels in nature- there are not even "round things" until we are here to define what "round" means.

There are many philosophers who disagree with you!

The "tableness" or "chairness" of a thing exists as an abstraction in a realm of Forms. Do they exist independently of the mind? Perhaps not. But these are attributes of things that allow them to be semantically understood, or known, to the mind. They may have no real essence. However, instances of abstract forms exist also in a substantial realm, and at the moment of their creation, exist independently of their classification (A table is made. An extinction even occurs and all minds capable of comprehending the table die. The table remains as a concrete entity, but the realm of Forms dissipates with the death of the mind). There are two classes of forms: those that arise in the human mind, and those that can be discovered and categorized by the mind. "Red" exists in the latter category, and it's existence in the substantial world is independent of any human perception of it. There was a time, perhaps, when it existed beyond classification, before language and definitions gave birth to universals. So I'm suggesting an ontological dualism as a possibility for understanding reality, if it exists.

Under this dualism, things are known by experience. This is empiricism; it is a vehicle for efficiently navigating the realm of Forms. Reliable experience is necessary to create the abstractions that allow real things to be understood and known. Contradictions are areas where optimization is required and objective senses are used to form congruence between abstraction and object.

"Truth" is an abstraction. It could mean a lot of things. We have an idea about what it means, and we try to project that onto religion and spirituality. I'm raising the possibility that religious truth and the truth that claims to create universals for objective reality are potentially two different things. It could be that God exists in the same way that the number seven exists or that "tableness" exists. We may be dealing with a universal that has no complement in the physical world, and that the world of abstractions (as you suggest) is entirely dependent on the human mind.

That is what the fact of contradictory revelations from the Spirit suggests to me.

[Brian 2.0]

Personally, I'd be very comfortable with that being the case. I believe there is one path back to God but different vehicles are provided. People usually consider their vehicle to be the best or most effective one. And yes, that provides the chance that Mormonism will turn out to be one of many. Are we to presume that until 1830 there were no other effective vehicles?

In 1978, the first presidency, under President Kimball said:

https://www.lds.org/...estion?lang=eng

The great nations beyond the west have not been 'left in the dark for 5,000 years.' As you asked in your previous post. These principles can, if followed, make them more Christlike without believing in Christ. Or perhaps they are all systems (or vehicles) for making us more Godlike even if we know Him by different names.

Or... perhaps even if we don't think He's there at all. If Atheism triggers a belief in the individual that the only opportunity to make a difference to their family, their community, the generations to come was in their mortal life and not in some dream of a millennial celestial hereafter... then the belief may well be 'fit for purpose.'

Devotion to God is manifested through loving and serving others. That principle was taught time and again by Jesus Christ. So whatever 'mode of action' is used, the 'being' is more important than the specifics of what we believe.

Really like this approach, Canard. Hard to find fault in an approach like this. I even like how you threw Atheists into the mix, being that I'm practically one in my beliefs these days. If I got in a time machine and told my full believing self what I believe today, the old me would have had plenty of assumptions about my current life/morals/happiness. It's actually quite weird to me how it's worked out the opposite. I find myself doing more service and helping out my fellow man, because I feel we're the only ones that can do it. I cherish every day and every earthly relationship a bit more, because that may be all there is. I know a lot of those things can be felt very strongly and equally, if not more, for some full believing members, but I'm just saying for me...not believing has oddly improved my "Christlike" behavior to my fellow man.

On the other hand there are a lot of things that are really hard (or impossible) to replicate outside the church, which is why, despite my beliefs, I am still semi-active and enjoy the sense of community with the Saints. Posts like yours are refreshing and very inclusive and I thank you for it.

Thanks for the reply.

p.s. I found that 1978 quote from Kimball re:Mohammad, Confucius, etc. way back in my believing days and it quickly became one of my favorites. I used it all the time in talks. Still one of my favorites.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

There are many philosophers who disagree with you!

The "tableness" or "chairness" of a thing exists as an abstraction in a realm of Forms. Do they exist independently of the mind? Perhaps not. But these are attributes of things that allow them to be semantically understood, or known, to the mind. They may have no real essence. However, instances of abstract forms exist also in a substantial realm, and at the moment of their creation, exist independently of their classification (A table is made. An extinction even occurs and all minds capable of comprehending the table die. The table remains as a concrete entity, but the realm of Forms dissipates with the death of the mind). There are two classes of forms: those that arise in the human mind, and those that can be discovered and categorized by the mind. "Red" exists in the latter category, and it's existence in the substantial world is independent of any human perception of it. There was a time, perhaps, when it existed beyond classification, before language and definitions gave birth to universals. So I'm suggesting an ontological dualism as a possibility for understanding reality, if it exists.

Under this dualism, things are known by experience. This is empiricism; it is a vehicle for efficiently navigating the realm of Forms. Reliable experience is necessary to create the abstractions that allow real things to be understood and known. Contradictions are areas where optimization is required and objective senses are used to form congruence between abstraction and object.

"Truth" is an abstraction. It could mean a lot of things. We have an idea about what it means, and we try to project that onto religion and spirituality. I'm raising the possibility that religious truth and the truth that claims to create universals for objective reality are potentially two different things. It could be that God exists in the same way that the number seven exists or that "tableness" exists. We may be dealing with a universal that has no complement in the physical world, and that the world of abstractions (as you suggest) is entirely dependent on the human mind.

That is what the fact of contradictory revelations from the Spirit suggests to me.

Yes I know all this. But this is pure Platonism. It is the philosophy of the sectarians and does not fit Mormonism

[mfbukowski]

"Red" exists in the latter category, and it's existence in the substantial world is independent of any human perception of it.

Ah- the only problem with that is that we would have no way of knowing if this is in any way correct. This creates major epistemological problems.

What contemporary philosophers hold these views? I am aware of them only in the ancient world