Holy Ghost: Says Different Things To Different People?

[canard78]

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.

I have a theory about Atheist and why it's becoming more prevalent in what I'd consider to be the latter days when we believe more of the elect are on the earth.

Being an Atheist is, in my mind, higher stakes. Higher risk. I spoke to a PHD student the other day. He said that his first of three years was involved in defining the question. His final evaluation would be both on the quality of his question and the answer. A high school graduate simply needs to learn and repeat information. An undergraduate is still given the question in most cases and then explores different answers around the question.

If atheists set both their own question and answer and still act as Matthew 25's 'sheep' not 'goats' I imagine there will be merit in it.

[wenglund]

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.

Yes, I will be reading them. As for now, I am off to Church (though I will finish responding to this post).

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?

Yes.

However, while the way may be open for them to eventually come to Christ, and God may desire that all his children eventually enter onto and complete the path that Christ established and which follows Christ and which best and most fully leads to becoming Christlike, I believe that God honors people's agency, and he realizes that not all his children desire to become even as he is, Not all of his children want what the Father wants. They may want what they want. And, some may want something less or different than what God may desire for them. I believe that God accepts this, and yet enables these children to achieve their very best selves to the end that they may desire.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alvino]

I like the attitude of accepting that someone got an answer to not join.

I think Ahab made an important distinction between receiving different directions and contradictory directions. Would you accept that the Holy Ghost can tell someone that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, that Christ never came to the Americas, and that the BoM is a ploy of Satan?

It isn't that the HG tells people that they should join this or that Church. It's the fact that these people think the HG tells them Mormonism is false or that the doctrine of sola scriptura with regards to the Bible is correct, or that the Pope has God's authority and priesthood.

[wenglund]

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?

In certain respects, why can't they both be right? Or, what if there isn't a "right" or "wrong" in the situation?

There may be a reason why God wanted the call to be extended to a given person, though he may not have wanted the person to take the call, or he may have figured that the person might not have been ready for the call. Or, there may be some test or lesson to be learned from the seeming conflicting revelation.

A number of years ago I had an experience that taught me not to draw hard-and-fast assumption from spiritual promptings, and to just go with the promptings and let God's wisdom bear itself out over time. Without getting into personal and lengthy detail, some time back the Lord had revealed to me, in fairly unquestionable terms, that towards the end of the weak I would be laid off from my job, and that I was to travel several thousand miles and by the following Saturday be sittting in the lobby of the Church office building in SLC. Pretty specific. Right?

Well, naturally, I assumed certain things were going to happen on that Saturday, and I was pretty excited with anticipation of what exactly that might be.

However, as it turned out, I sat in the office building lobby all day without anything happening, and I was finally ushered out for closing.

This disturbed me greatly at the time because I could not deny that I had received the revelation, but things had obviously not turned out as I expected.

Anyway, I still determined to trust in God, and then on the next Sunday, and also over the following 10 years, I was later able to see why I was prompted to be in SLC when I was.

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

There are a variety of roles: test, teach, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 14, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

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.

To some extent I think this is the case, though I do also believe that there is a "one true Church/gospel," and that "one true Church/gospel" was restored by Joseph Smith through Jesus Christ.

To me, this is seeming conflict is reconciled in my mind in two ways. 1) the alternative paths may not ultimately lead people to perfection in Christ (i.e. divinity), though to varying degrees they may lead towards perfection, and they may prepare people to later enter upon the "one true path" that does lead to perfection in Christ; and 2) as intimated earlier, the alternative paths may lead people to becoming the very best they want to become, which may be different from what God may personally want for them to become.

Think of it as somewhat analogous to a loving father, who has developed and worked in a very specialized profession, wanting his children to follow in his footsteps, and to go into the same career, and who has set up an education program for getting into the career (kind of like what has occurred with Aaron Beck and his daughter with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy).

Here you have only one "true" path to qualify for and be licensed in the specialized profession.

However, suppose some of the father's children have different learning styles and needs, and may be interested in or can't handle the rigors of the specialized education program. I would think that the loving father might advise those children to take certain alternative paths until they are ready to enter the specialized program.

Also, suppose some of the father's children have no interest in getting into the fathers career, and prefer something less taxing or different and more in line with their own personal tastes. I would think that the loving father, who respects his children's divergent wishes, even though they may differ from his wishes for them, would yet suggest to these children the best course to take in achieving and becoming the very best in their chosen field.

How could you know that all roads lead to Christ and the Restored Gospel?

I believe there are many roads that lead a certain ways up the mountain that is Christ, but only one that leads ultimately to the very top. God may think it wise for some of his children to travel the road to the top; some to travel for a time on other roads, though eventually entering onto the one road to the top; while still for others it may be best for them to travel another road and even other hills and dales, so as to reach as high and where they are want to go.

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?

That's possible, though, for good reason, I suspect it is the other way around. We'll see.

The point is, there may be divergent paths that God may inspire us to take, and we would do well to follow his inspiration, for it will take us to the heights we are want to go.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 14, 2013 by wenglund

[pmccombs1]

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

Mormonism asserts universals, proclaims the existence of truth, claims that truth can be known, and provides a method by which to know it. These are the tenets of Platonism. Platonism teaches that things have eternal, transcendental essences by which we might recognize them as they really are; that we all had access to this realm of truth in a pre-existence and have merely forgotten about it. That we are not blank slates, but as we go through life, we draw knowledge out and remember what we knew before. Thus, truth exists independently of the human mind and things are more than what they appear to be. The point of education is to recall a greater fullness of these eternal essences. Platonism made epistemology possible; prior to it, the only concern was ontology.

If this does not fit Mormonism, then Mormonism needs to change its language in order to say what it really means.

[pmccombs1]

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.

Yes, exactly. But that's like saying, "the problem with modern medicine is that it creates major problems for bloodletting." Empiricism reveals the limits to epistemology. Hume asserted that all truth is contingent and that it is impossible for the human mind to grasp the true nature of reality. Plato says that the true nature of real things is revealed to the mind, and Hume says, "yes, but not entirely and not with certainty." Once we get a glimpse of the fact that we inhabit an order of ignorance, and that there are things out there that we don't know because they don't depend on the human mind for their existence, that is progress. It reveals problems and shortcomings, yes. But that isn't a reason to dismiss it.

So, here are the limits of epistemology. If there is a concrete reality, and if things have intrinsic natures that can be hidden from and revealed to the human mind, and if the universe isn't merely an "ideal" created by the mind of man or of God (ala George Berkely's subjective idealism), then there is the need for epistemology. And it has limits, but it could be optimized. One optimization is reliabilism (I know of no others).

I believe we've been putting the cart before the horse in this discussion on conflicting witnesses of the Spirit. Rather than trying to justify how two opposing revelations can be simultaneously true, why hasn't anyone asked how we know that the Holy Ghost has given anything to witness in the first place? That's the first question. How do we know that the cacophony of religious claims isn't akin to my kids arguing, at playtime, about made-up stuff? Without answering that in its proper place, it seems to me that we are begging the question.

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

Do we have contemporary philosophers? It appears that we only have meta-philosophers these days. An example of a contemporary philosopher might be Ayn Rand. She created a system call Objectivism and argued against Kant's Transcendental Idealism while promoting Aristotle.

A contemporary philosopher that you might identify with is Derrida, since he was interested in semiotics and narratives. But that guy spent his time deconstructing philosophy, and he failed to leave us with anything better in its place.

I enjoy reading John Millbank, a Thomistic theologian. Maybe he's a philosopher. He says that we ought to dispense with epistemology altogether and get back to the days of participation and being rather than knowing and arguing. You might not like him, though, since he promotes the ideas of Neo-Platonism.

[mfbukowski]

Mormonism asserts universals, proclaims the existence of truth, claims that truth can be known, and provides a method by which to know it. These are the tenets of Platonism. Platonism teaches that things have eternal, transcendental essences by which we might recognize them as they really are; that we all had access to this realm of truth in a pre-existence and have merely forgotten about it. That we are not blank slates, but as we go through life, we draw knowledge out and remember what we knew before. Thus, truth exists independently of the human mind and things are more than what they appear to be. The point of education is to recall a greater fullness of these eternal essences. Platonism made epistemology possible; prior to it, the only concern was ontology.

If this does not fit Mormonism, then Mormonism needs to change its language in order to say what it really means.

On that we differ.

I don't think you can find ANY Platonism in latter-day revelation.

A God with a body is about as far from Platonism as you can get. He is not a disembodied Form of Goodness- he is our Heavenly Father who is literally the Father of our spirits, who has a body as tangible as ours, and so does the Savior.

2500 year old Greek philosophy has no place in the Restoration.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, exactly. But that's like saying, "the problem with modern medicine is that it creates major problems for bloodletting." Empiricism reveals the limits to epistemology. Hume asserted that all truth is contingent and that it is impossible for the human mind to grasp the true nature of reality. Plato says that the true nature of real things is revealed to the mind, and Hume says, "yes, but not entirely and not with certainty." Once we get a glimpse of the fact that we inhabit an order of ignorance, and that there are things out there that we don't know because they don't depend on the human mind for their existence, that is progress. It reveals problems and shortcomings, yes. But that isn't a reason to dismiss it.

So who's side are you on- Hume or Plato?? What is your point here?

How could you even possibly know- (presumably with your mind as the only access) what you cannot know with your mind? Extra mental perception? What would that be like? Even revelation is through the mind- and is as "real" as anything else we "get" through our minds. Indeed that is the whole problem and the whole solution! We Mormons affirm revelation as real and yet create problems for ourselves asking "How do we know that our personal revelation is the mind and will of God?"

The answer to that question is unknowable- so why ask it? Just cut to the chase and leave it with "I know what I know" and understand that there is no conflict in saying that- that it does not imply that God's will is unknowable- just that it varies according to our circumstances.

Dualists worry all day about reality not be mind dependent while all they can see reality "through" is their minds! How can you know without a mind? All we have is human experience.

So, here are the limits of epistemology. If there is a concrete reality, and if things have intrinsic natures that can be hidden from and revealed to the human mind, and if the universe isn't merely an "ideal" created by the mind of man or of God (ala George Berkely's subjective idealism),

Why do we need to make these assumptions? It is not "merely" anything- the world IS exactly as we experience it - no magical underlying anything that our minds cannot plumb.

then there is the need for epistemology. And it has limits, but it could be optimized. One optimization is reliabilism (I know of no others).

Exactly right. But there IS no need for epistemology in the classic sense- what you see is what you get. Reality is the pool of all that humans have experienced- in this case including revelation. Yes, different people experience different things- so what? Perception and reality itself is ambiguous- now let's go on with life by accepting pragmatic solutions to life's problems as suggested in Alma 32!

Alma 32 is totally incompatible with Platonism. According to Alma 32, understanding is gained by a person living in the world experimenting with what works spiritually Platonists gain understanding not by experimenting with the world but by contemplating Forms and recalling what they knew before they arrived on earth. There is clearly some place for that in Mormonism- but we are here in earthlife to actually DO Alma 32 stuff- ie- learn through experience, not passive contemplation.

I believe we've been putting the cart before the horse in this discussion on conflicting witnesses of the Spirit. Rather than trying to justify how two opposing revelations can be simultaneously true, why hasn't anyone asked how we know that the Holy Ghost has given anything to witness in the first place? That's the first question.

That's the point. That problem only exists in a dualistic universe where what we know is alien to our mental activity and separated into some inaccessible realm, some kind of inaccessible "stuff" beyond experience. Saying that "all we know is what we -all, as humans, experience" just eliminates the problem- poof it's gone! In dualism there is some inaccessible essence or substance- and we are all back to Thomism and alchemy. Substance vs accident- changing lead into gold by changing its accidents, bread into flesh by changing its substance. It is sectarian philosophy unfit for the Restoration.

How do we know that the cacophony of religious claims isn't akin to my kids arguing, at playtime, about made-up stuff? Without answering that in its proper place, it seems to me that we are begging the question.

The only way we can know is by the spirit- by the reality of our personal experiences themselves. Do you ever ask if you truly "love" your wife- or that you hate evil? Is something disgusting "really" disgusting, or are you just seeing it that way? No one asks that.

Do you like pepperoni pizza? How do you know for sure if you really do or not? These are just silly questions but apply them to theological positions and suddenly they appear to fill the universe with their importance. Of course they are important- but on the other hand we have all eternity to figure them out. But what if all non-believers in the God Xloty go to hell and burn forever? Since I have never heard of him, I guess I will have to take my chances.

Do we have contemporary philosophers? It appears that we only have meta-philosophers these days. An example of a contemporary philosopher might be Ayn Rand. She created a system call Objectivism and argued against Kant's Transcendental Idealism while promoting Aristotle.

Yeah- but she is not even taught in philosophy departments- not recognized as a "philosopher" by those who decide what courses to offer etc. But I think then my point stands, that there are virtually no people teaching in philosophy departments who take your position.

A contemporary philosopher that you might identify with is Derrida, since he was interested in semiotics and narratives. But that guy spent his time deconstructing philosophy, and he failed to leave us with anything better in its place.

I love Derrida, but he is certainly NOT a Platonist so I am not sure why you would even list him in this context. In fact he is clearly in my ball-park in discussing the contingency of language and knowledge and no where close to Platonism. And yes, what he gave us is more ammunition to deconstruct the grand metaphysical schemes of the past- which I think is a good thing, and indeed what I am trying to accomplish in my little way on this board.

I enjoy reading John Millbank, a Thomistic theologian. Maybe he's a philosopher. He says that we ought to dispense with epistemology altogether and get back to the days of participation and being rather than knowing and arguing. You might not like him, though, since he promotes the ideas of Neo-Platonism.

Well I would agree with that first part about participation- but that is a very Alma 32 idea. But insofar as he is a Thomist, and that you would bring him up, I think supports more my position, yet again, than yours, precisely because Thomists are by definition Catholic, and what the Restoration is about is NOT Catholic at all. Arguably it was Neoplatonism which caused the apostasy in the first place- and it is the problem rather than the solution. At least that is what I think.

Edited April 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

Here you have only one "true" path to qualify for and be licensed in the specialized profession.

However, suppose some of the father's children have different learning styles and needs, and may be interested in or can't handle the rigors of the specialized education program. I would think that the loving father might advise those children to take certain alternative paths until they are ready to enter the specialized program.

Also, suppose some of the father's children have no interest in getting into the fathers career, and prefer something less taxing or different and more in line with their own personal tastes. I would think that the loving father, who respects his children's divergent wishes, even though they may differ from his wishes for them, would yet suggest to these children the best course to take in achieving and becoming the very best in their chosen field.

I believe there are many roads that lead a certain ways up the mountain that is Christ, but only one that leads ultimately to the very top. God may think it wise for some of his children to travel the road to the top; some to travel for a time on other roads, though eventually entering onto the one road to the top; while still for others it may be best for them to travel another road and even other hills and dales, so as to reach as high and where they are want to go.

That's possible, though, for good reason, I suspect it is the other way around. We'll see.

The point is, there may be divergent paths that God may inspire us to take, and we would do well to follow his inspiration, for it will take us to the heights we are want to go.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I love both these analogies. Especially the mountain one. The idea of of many paths up a mountain range, but possibly different peaks and criss-crossing paths is very appealing to me. Reaching as high as we possibly can (1+1, 2+2, 5+5 talents) seems to be in line with the gospel. I suppose most would presume that there's us the best path to the top, else they'd be on another path or give up entirely.

I mentioned it on the turkey stuffing thread but find it relevant here too:

The Church in a Cross-Cultural World

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf

We believe that every man and woman, irrespective of race, culture, nationality, or political or economic circumstance, has the power to determine what is right and what is wrong. In the Book of Mormon we read, “For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God” (Moroni 7:16).

...

Modern revelation brings the human existence to a clear, divine, and eternal perspective. Latter-day Saints believe in an ethic of divine approbation; to discern the will of God and receive assurance that one is acting under God’s approval are the ultimate quest of discipleship. This may be called Spirit-guided morality.

Latter-day Saints believe that all human beings are God’s children and that He loves all of us. He has inspired not only people of the Bible and the Book of Mormon but other people as well to carry out His purposes through all cultures and parts of the world. God inspires not only Latter-day Saints but also founders, teachers, philosophers, and reformers of other Christian and non-Christian religions. The restored gospel holds a positive relationship with other religions. Intolerance is always a sign of weakness. The Latter-day Saint perspective is that of the eleventh article of faith: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may” (Articles of Faith 1:11).

The Church teaches that members must not only be kind and loving toward others but also respect their right to believe and worship as they choose. George Albert Smith, the eighth President of the Church, publicly advocated the official Church policy of friendship and tolerance: “We have come not to take away from you the truth and virtue you possess. We have come not to find fault with you nor to criticize you. . . . We have come here as your brethren . . . to say to you: ‘Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring to you more good, in order that you may be happier and in order that you may be prepared to enter into the presence of our Heavenly Father.’”

On February 15, 1978, the First Presidency of the Church issued the following declaration: “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. . . . Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are the sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father.” In the words of Orson F. Whitney, an Apostle, the gospel “embraces all truth, whether known or unknown. It incorporates all intelligence, both past and prospective. No righteous principle will ever be revealed, no truth can possibly be discovered, either in time or in eternity, that does not in some manner, directly or indirectly, pertain to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

...

Diversity by its very nature implies differences. Not all differences are of equal value; some differences can be very positive, and some can be destructive. For example, Latter-day Saints, though we are “required to forgive all men” (D&C 64:10), cannot accept and tolerate the gross evils that are so prevalent in societies today. We hear often of the need for people to be tolerant of differences they observe in others. We agree insofar as tolerance implies genuine respect for another, but we disagree if tolerance means acceptance of sin, which God Himself rejects. “For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (D&C 1:31).

...

By crossing boundaries, continents, and countries, we are establishing contact with different cultures, religions, and traditions. Naturally some challenges arise. In many countries, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is viewed as an American church. Church leaders strongly emphasize that it is a universal church for all people everywhere, with a responsibility to share the gospel with all of God’s children. There is an increased awareness of cultural differences as well as a willingness to work within those differences. The Apostle Paul pronounced that all men and women are God’s beloved children. To the Athenians, Paul said, God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).

...

The world is becoming, to some degree, a global village with a diverse population. Even in the United States it is expected that by the year 2050 the so-called racial minorities will have taken over and will surpass in numbers the Anglo majority. The children and grandchildren of today’s Americans will live in a society where everyone is a member of a minority group. Therefore, we must look beyond superficial stereotyping, which influences too much of our thinking about the worth of those who seem on the surface to be different than we are and sometimes leads us to judge them prematurely. We must learn to look at others through the eyes of love, not as strangers and foreigners but as individuals, fellow children of God, of one blood with us. The Apostle Paul taught, “By love serve one another” (Galatians 5:13).

Becoming a worldwide religion in spirit as well as in organizational matters is much more than building chapels and translating documents. As we embark to experience the universal brotherhood we seek, all of us must be prepared to make some alterations in our views of one another. We will need to increase our empathy and cross-cultural sensitivity and progressively discard prejudices incompatible with brotherhood. The different cultural and ethnical backgrounds bring challenges into members’ lives.

We also need to make a clear distinction between our cultural and other preferences and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel has flourished and has been blessed and sanctioned by God under numerous kinds of governments and economic and cultural systems. There must be some accountability, of course, between these preferences and systems and the gospel. In political terms, one key is freedom: freedom unfettered by practices that limit the exercise of religious conscience or that relegate classes of citizens to servitude, bondage, oppression, or exploitation—freedom that is compatible with the gospel. Governments that actively foster freedom of conscience and opportunity and protect it for all of its citizens are our implicit friends. This is true whether they happen to agree with the political policy of the United States or not. This is not an American church. The Church is beyond the nation-state because no state is an official representative of God. So why is it to our advantage to make a distinction between the gospel we possess and our own political, economic, and cultural preferences?

...

To become a worldwide Church in various cultures and nations, the doctrinal truths of the restored gospel will be the guiding star, not our political background, not even some of the present Church programs. It is the Spirit that counts.

A diverse Latter-day Saint people cannot have brotherhood if one of its segments insists on being always right, all the time, on everything. The gospel is transcendent truth—man-made political and social institutions are not. In social, cultural, and political areas, we cannot expect that widely divergent people should adhere to the same specific perspectives. It is certain that some aspects of culture, ideology, and political practices are more compatible with gospel principles than others, and from that point they are temporally preferable, but only the principles of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ constitute eternal truth.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/global-morm ... ural-world

[canard78]

I think Ahab made an important distinction between receiving different directions and contradictory directions. Would you accept that the Holy Ghost can tell someone that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, that Christ never came to the Americas, and that the BoM is a ploy of Satan?

It isn't that the HG tells people that they should join this or that Church. It's the fact that these people think the HG tells them Mormonism is false or that the doctrine of sola scriptura with regards to the Bible is correct, or that the Pope has God's authority and priesthood.

In my last post I quoted Elder Uchtdorf who spoke of 'spirit guided morality.'

He also said:

Latter-day Saints believe that all human beings are God’s children and that He loves all of us. He has inspired not only people of the Bible and the Book of Mormon but other people as well to carry out His purposes through all cultures and parts of the world. God inspires not only Latter-day Saints but also founders, teachers, philosophers, and reformers of other Christian and non-Christian religions. The restored gospel holds a positive relationship with other religions.

So yes, I can imagine God does sometimes lead people to other truth if they can better 'fill the measure of their creation" in that role.

Have you heard of Andrew van der Bijl? AKA "God's smuggler/Brother Andrew?" He smuggles 100s of Bibles through the "Iron Curtain." He probably didn't know much about Mormonism. But if he had prayed about it, he might be one person who could have got a "not true" answer as it would have stopped the work he devoted his life to instead.

You wouldn't place a child in an education stream above or below their abilities. You would tell them, "stream X is the only one for you, the best one for you."

I sometimes wonder whether in Mormonism I am top set or bottom set. Sweet and simple with lots of instructions and low room for ambiguity... Or far reaching, visionary, eternal in its scope, demanding in its expectations. Both could be possible.

I've decided it doesn't matter. It's the best work stream for me. That'll do pig, that'll do.

[Alvino]

So yes, I can imagine God does sometimes lead people to other truth if they can better 'fill the measure of their creation" in that role.

But then the Holy Ghost can lie and does lie if people who think the HG tells them JS was a false prophet are correct yet it tells other people that JS was not a false prophet and these are also correct (in that the HG tells them this). We are not talking about "other truths", we are talking about contradictions. Not different information, contradictory information.

Have you heard of Andrew van der Bijl? AKA "God's smuggler/Brother Andrew?" He smuggles 100s of Bibles through the "Iron Curtain." He probably didn't know much about Mormonism. But if he had prayed about it, he might be one person who could have got a "not true" answer as it would have stopped the work he devoted his life to instead.

And if the HG tells him Mormonism is false yet it tells others Mormonism is true, then the HG is lying in one of those two cases.

You wouldn't place a child in an education stream above or below their abilities. You would tell them, "stream X is the only one for you, the best one for you."

"The best one for you" is not what we are talking about, canard78. If you tell them "Look, John P, this stream is the best for you" yet you tell another person who asks that that wasn't the best stream for John P, then you have contradicted yourself. You might want to look up what a logical contradiction is. You really never answered Ahab's concern and you aren't really answering the issue people have of the HG telling people conflicting things like "JS was a false prophet" and "JS was not a false prophet".

Edited April 15, 2013 by Alvino

[mfbukowski]

"The best one for you" is not what we are talking about, canard78.

Yes, it is.

Maybe you are thinking there is an objective "best for you" but I don't. I think we are all called to churches which will teach us "best for us", but we will all eventually converge in one position.

There is not an objectively "best" way to get from NY to LA by car. Maybe some want to see the Grand Canyon and watch the scenery while others want to get there in 4 days.

You need to understand that the world is not all simple black and white- the way you would like it to be. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

It's like saying there is a "best" way to teach long division, or how to play a flute.

[mfbukowski]

You really never answered Ahab's concern and you aren't really answering the issue people have of the HG telling people conflicting things like "JS was a false prophet" and "JS was not a false prophet".

Prophets are not true or false- only utterances are. If you can show me what any "true" thing is, I would be interested.

What is a "true" table or tree?

[canard78]

"The best one for you" is not what we are talking about, canard78. If you tell them "Look, John P, this stream is the best for you" yet you tell another person who asks that that wasn't the best stream for John P, then you have contradicted yourself. You might want to look up what a logical contradiction is. You really never answered Ahab's concern and you aren't really answering the issue people have of the HG telling people conflicting things like "JS was a false prophet" and "JS was not a false prophet".

If you add "for me" to each of those last two statements then it still works. A false prophet "for me" or a true prophet "for me."

Some might say that the reality (or fabrication) of Joseph's vision exists independent of any spiritual witness. But given it was nearly 200 years ago that might be less important than what relevance it has to us.

Let's assume Joseph's vision is reality. Why would someone be inspired to believe he was not.

Would God, effectively 'lie' to one and not another? Malicious lying is what I'd call 'misleading' people. If the spirit is effectively leading people to their highest potential, even if they teach them something that would contradict what someone else has been taught, then I have no problem with that.

As I have quoted before, God seems comfortable with teaching things that aren't technically accurate, but 'for effect'

"6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, D&C 19)"

[Alvino]

@mfbukowski:

Really, mf? Are you going to play this game where you don't know what I'm talking about? Matthew 7:15? A false prophet is someone who isn't called by God yet claims to be.

Maybe you really have problems with the concept of a false alarm or a false start?

[canard78]

Yes, it is.

Maybe you are thinking there is an objective "best for you" but I don't. I think we are all called to churches which will teach us "best for us", but we will all eventually converge in one position.

There is not an objectively "best" way to get from NY to LA by car. Maybe some want to see the Grand Canyon and watch the scenery while others want to get there in 4 days.

You need to understand that the world is not all simple black and white- the way you would like it to be. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

It's like saying there is a "best" way to teach long division, or how to play a flute.

I'm forever asking my kids' teachers to send the method for the latest new maths solution. I've learned that as soon as I introduce a second method (two truths to the same answer) they get very confused. One method for one answer.

Elder Uchtdorf gave a very comsiderate example of us being like toddlers in conference. We thrive best when it's kept simple. Especially questions of theology.

[Alvino]

If you add "for me" to each of those last two statements then it still works. A false prophet "for me" or a true prophet "for me."

But that's certainly not what people think the HG is telling them. They don't think the HG told them "To you, JS was a false prophet" but "JS was a false prophet". Maybe you think they got the message incorrectly? Yet if the HG tells someone who wants to know if JS was not a false prophet "For you, JS was a not a false prophet" then the HG would still be lying because they don't in fact believe JS was not a false prophet, that's why they're asking (thus, not "for them" so the HG would still be saying something false).

Some might say that the reality (or fabrication) of Joseph's vision exists independent of any spiritual witness. But given it was nearly 200 years ago that might be less important than what relevance it has to us.

Jesus was around quite a long time ago but he's still pretty relevant to a lot of people. You think it isn't relevant for them if Jesus never resurrected or if he never performed any miracles?

Let's assume Joseph's vision is reality. Why would someone be inspired to believe he was not.

believe he was not what?

Would God, effectively 'lie' to one and not another? Malicious lying is what I'd call 'misleading' people.

You haven't answered whether God is lying or not or whether people just misread spiritual messages.

If the spirit is effectively leading people to their highest potential, even if they teach them something that would contradict what someone else has been taught, then I have no problem with that.

The HG didn't tell you that, did he?

You see, I thought the whole purpose of personal revelation was to have a way out of this circle of the philosophies of men. Once you take away the reliability of this spiritual revelation thing then you go back to having to convince with reasons what you say, and that's not an area in which, when freedom rings, religion comes out winning. What reason would you have for believing that the spirit effectively leads people to their highest potential? (You can't bring anything the HG has said since we don't know whether something he says is true or false)

As I have quoted before, God seems comfortable with teaching things that aren't technically accurate, but 'for effect'

"6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, D&C 19)"

So, God does lie, then?

Edited April 15, 2013 by Alvino

[pmccombs1]

On that we differ.

I don't think you can find ANY Platonism in latter-day revelation.

A God with a body is about as far from Platonism as you can get. He is not a disembodied Form of Goodness- he is our Heavenly Father who is literally the Father of our spirits, who has a body as tangible as ours, and so does the Savior.

2500 year old Greek philosophy has no place in the Restoration.

OK, tell me what your philosophical influences are. I can't discern it from your arguments. I understand Platonism as a system of universals, where things have intrinsic essences regardless of any perception. It is eternalistic. Empiricism is a development along these lines, but understands that the human mind is limited and can't perfectly sense or comprehend the real properties of things. Thus there are many things we don't know and don't understand, thus anything Plato said about God is subject to revision based on future developments.

You're making unqualified assertions about the "Father" and the "Savior" as if you were declaring Forms that these objects (Father and Savior) must fulfill. I hear Platonism.

[pmccombs1]

So who's side are you on- Hume or Plato?? What is your point here?

Both. Plato laid the groundwork, Hume found it's limitations. My point is that yes, you're right about empiricism creating problems for epistemology. But that's not a bad thing.

How could you even possibly know- (presumably with your mind as the only access) what you cannot know with your mind? Extra mental perception? What would that be like? Even revelation is through the mind- and is as "real" as anything else we "get" through our minds. Indeed that is the whole problem and the whole solution! We Mormons affirm revelation as real and yet create problems for ourselves asking "How do we know that our personal revelation is the mind and will of God?"

One can affirm anything to be real based on whatever mental apoplexy is in force at the moment. Empiricism says there are cues that indicate when one subjective impulse is reliable, and when it is not.

The answer to that question is unknowable- so why ask it? Just cut to the chase and leave it with "I know what I know" and understand that there is no conflict in saying that- that it does not imply that God's will is unknowable- just that it varies according to our circumstances.

Yes, that's fine if we keep our knowledge to ourselves, but men have a tendency to march about shaping the world after their own image. Hence the wisdom of asking, "How do you know?"

Dualists worry all day about reality not be mind dependent while all they can see reality "through" is their minds! How can you know without a mind? All we have is human experience.

But not all experience is equal.

Why do we need to make these assumptions? It is not "merely" anything- the world IS exactly as we experience it - no magical underlying anything that our minds cannot plumb.

That's idealism. It's troubling to guys like me who experience spiritual phenomena that don't square with each other, or with other non-spiritual experience. We need to "make these assumptions" in order to sort out stuff like that.

Exactly right. But there IS no need for epistemology in the classic sense- what you see is what you get. Reality is the pool of all that humans have experienced- in this case including revelation. Yes, different people experience different things- so what? Perception and reality itself is ambiguous- now let's go on with life by accepting pragmatic solutions to life's problems as suggested in Alma 32!

Alma 32 is totally incompatible with Platonism. According to Alma 32, understanding is gained by a person living in the world experimenting with what works spiritually Platonists gain understanding not by experimenting with the world but by contemplating Forms and recalling what they knew before they arrived on earth. There is clearly some place for that in Mormonism- but we are here in earthlife to actually DO Alma 32 stuff- ie- learn through experience, not passive contemplation.

Sure, but Doing things could be another mode of discovering forms. That's still working in the same framework of universals, just like I claim Hume is in the same vein as Plato. There are eternally, absolutely true things, they have their being independent of the mind, but they might present themselves to the human mind and be made known to it. If we have a reliable experience, we can justify our knowledge of them.

That's the point. That problem only exists in a dualistic universe where what we know is alien to our mental activity and separated into some inaccessible realm, some kind of inaccessible "stuff" beyond experience. Saying that "all we know is what we -all, as humans, experience" just eliminates the problem- poof it's gone! In dualism there is some inaccessible essence or substance- and we are all back to Thomism and alchemy. Substance vs accident- changing lead into gold by changing its accidents, bread into flesh by changing its substance. It is sectarian philosophy unfit for the Restoration.

Right. This was my point about orders of ignorance and the limits of epistemology. Once we become conscious that we are ignorant, we can look for tools to experience what is currently beyond our experience (such a way to "see" x-rays). It's not a problem. We become aware of additional possibilities and other realms of Forms that can't be presently used. Idealism runs away from that "problem" by "making it go away." It's not real unless it can be experienced. Poof, it's gone! Blinders firmly in place. If idealism were the philosophy du jour, we would have never looked for x-rays or thought to hypothesize and look for reliable ways to disprove them.

The only way we can know is by the spirit- by the reality of our personal experiences themselves. Do you ever ask if you truly "love" your wife- or that you hate evil? Is something disgusting "really" disgusting, or are you just seeing it that way? No one asks that.

Do you like pepperoni pizza? How do you know for sure if you really do or not? These are just silly questions but apply them to theological positions and suddenly they appear to fill the universe with their importance. Of course they are important- but on the other hand we have all eternity to figure them out. But what if all non-believers in the God Xloty go to hell and burn forever? Since I have never heard of him, I guess I will have to take my chances.

You're arguing apples and Volkswagens. Nobody asks those questions because they have to do with the inner life. If I love someone, or like pizza, or find something disgusting, those are all things about me. I'm the most reliable source for my own inner self.

I'm talking about discovering the Forms of external things. The Spirit is supposed to bear witness of external reality. These are things that present themselves to the mind, but do not arise from it. If you are arguing that the universe exists in the Mind; if you are arguing that reality is just a byproduct of mental operations, then fine. Idealism. God is an ideal, like algebra. He only ideally has a body. And when the mind changes, God changes with it. All experience is true. Everything is true, and yes, what's the point of asking questions?

Yeah- but she is not even taught in philosophy departments- not recognized as a "philosopher" by those who decide what courses to offer etc. But I think then my point stands, that there are virtually no people teaching in philosophy departments who take your position.

I love Derrida, but he is certainly NOT a Platonist so I am not sure why you would even list him in this context. In fact he is clearly in my ball-park in discussing the contingency of language and knowledge and no where close to Platonism. And yes, what he gave us is more ammunition to deconstruct the grand metaphysical schemes of the past- which I think is a good thing, and indeed what I am trying to accomplish in my little way on this board.

If you recall, I said that lots of philosophers disagree with you. I said nothing about contemporary. I then voiced my opinion that we have no modern philosophers, only meta-philosophers like Rand or Derrida. I said that Derrida thinks more like you do, but I don't think we have modern philosophers per se. Tons of dead philosophers disagree with you, and I daresay most modern people unconsciously assume the ideas of those guys. Idealism isn't very natural for us without a great deal of mental gymnastics, in my opinion.

Well I would agree with that first part about participation- but that is a very Alma 32 idea. But insofar as he is a Thomist, and that you would bring him up, I think supports more my position, yet again, than yours, precisely because Thomists are by definition Catholic, and what the Restoration is about is NOT Catholic at all. Arguably it was Neoplatonism which caused the apostasy in the first place- and it is the problem rather than the solution. At least that is what I think.

Yes, Millbank wouldn't agree with my position for this argument at all. I think he's more of a monist. But I like him, and he might be considered a contemporary philosopher. And he would disagree with you as well.

[canard78]

But that's certainly not what people think the HG is telling them. They don't think the HG told them "To you, JS was a false prophet" but "JS was a false prophet". Maybe you think they got the message incorrectly? Yet if the HG tells someone who wants to know if JS was not a false prophet "For you, JS was a not a false prophet" then the HG would still be lying because they don't in fact believe JS was not a false prophet, that's why they're asking (thus, not "for them" so the HG would still be saying something false).

Jesus was around quite a long time ago but he's still pretty relevant to a lot of people. You think it isn't relevant for them if Jesus never resurrected or if he never performed any miracles?

believe he was not what?

You haven't answered whether God is lying or not or whether people just misread spiritual messages.

The HG didn't tell you that, did he?

You see, I thought the whole purpose of personal revelation was to have a way out of this circle of the philosophies of men. Once you take away the reliability of this spiritual revelation thing then you go back to having to convince with reasons what you say, and that's not an area in which, when freedom rings, religion comes out winning. What reason would you have for believing that the spirit effectively leads people to their highest potential? (You can't bring anything the HG has said since we don't know whether something he says is true or false)

So, God does lie, then?

I'm not sure what more you want me to say. I'm not going to call God a liar because it would also suggest that God intentionally deceives people and misleads them. That does not ring true.

But I am also not going to say that every spiritual witness that someone has which contradicts Mormonism is a misunderstood answer. That would be highly arrogant.

There appears to be something in between happening. God is the perfect communicator and has, I'm sure, the ability to give the right information to the right people. That might, in our limited understanding, appear to be either a contradiction or a deception. But then our minds are finite and our communication skills limited.

D&C 19 is a valuable scripture because it gives us a small insight into the mind of both men and God. He knows we will sometimes only react to absolute statements. He gives the gift of absolute statements to those who need it because he knows it will have an effect.

What do you make of this statement by Elder Uchtdorf:

He has inspired not only people of the Bible and the Book of Mormon but other people as well to carry out His purposes through all cultures and parts of the world. God inspires not only Latter-day Saints but also founders, teachers, philosophers, and reformers of other Christian and non-Christian religions.

And you presume the Holy Ghost didn't tell me all of this? How could you possibly know? Is the fact that some of this contradicts your perception of truth that you presume that mine must be wrong?

[Alvino]

I'm not sure what more you want me to say. I'm not going to call God a liar because it would also suggest that God intentionally deceives people and misleads them. That does not ring true.

But you did hint to the plausibility of it. God may very well deceive and mislead but for good purposes.

But I am also not going to say that every spiritual witness that someone has which contradicts Mormonism is a misunderstood answer. That would be highly arrogant.

What is it, then?

There appears to be something in between happening. God is the perfect communicator and has, I'm sure, the ability to give the right information to the right people. That might, in our limited understanding, appear to be either a contradiction or a deception. But then our minds are finite and our communication skills limited.

This answers none of the issues relevant. Does God tell people JS was a false prophet or not? I don't think the issue gets much clearer, and clear it is. Why you would refuse to answer such questions directly is, I think, an ugly matter.

D&C 19 is a valuable scripture because it gives us a small insight into the mind of both men and God. He knows we will sometimes only react to absolute statements. He gives the gift of absolute statements to those who need it because he knows it will have an effect.

Not answering the questions again, canard.

What do you make of this statement by Elder Uchtdorf:

I think little of it because such broad, vague statements serve us little. That is irrelevant to the question of whether people receive contradictory revelation the kind of which I have explained. That we tell people different things everyday doesn't mean we tell them contradictory things.

And you presume the Holy Ghost didn't tell me all of this? How could you possibly know?

lol I asked because if the HG did tell you all of this, given your previous remarks, they may very well just be ideas to help you 'rise to your higher potentials' whether actually true or not. According to what you said previously, you seem to have found plausible this idea which you aren't so forward now to defend.

[bcuzbcuz]

But I am also not going to say that every spiritual witness that someone has which contradicts Mormonism is a misunderstood answer. That would be highly arrogant.

And you presume the Holy Ghost didn't tell me all of this? How could you possibly know? Is the fact that some of this contradicts your perception of truth that you presume that mine must be wrong?

OK, I get it. All roads lead to Rome. And my path is individually structured to fit my needs and abilities but everything will gel into a common roadway, good for all, somewhere in the future. And this is supposed to be confirmed by the HG from his giving contradictory answers to different people?

I just don't buy it. This may be the new Mormonism but it sounds like a philosophy on roller skates, shifting and changing, trying to put itself in front of all comers.

When I accepted Mormonism, I was fully engaged, a TBM. When I left I knew what I was choosing and the consequences of my choices. I did not join, nor did I choose to leave a "one size fits all" dogma.

I think the answers to the HG inspired answers that give contradictory messages, will need to be dug from a much deeper well.

[canard78]

But you did hint to the plausibility of it. God may very well deceive and mislead but for good purposes.

No, I am not suggesting God deceives and misleads. Words matter to me. 'Deceive' means:

"to mislead or falsely persuade others." 'Mislead' means: "to lead or guide wrongly; lead astray.

to lead into error of conduct, thought, or judgment."

No-one is being lead by God into error of conduct, thought or judgement. Completely the opposite. God is giving the right information to the right people to help them walk in correct conduct, thought or judgement. He cannot simply give the same information to all people. We are too diverse in our needs, motives and spiritual understanding.

What is it, then?

I answered this in the following paragraph of my previous post.

This answers none of the issues relevant. Does God tell people JS was a false prophet or not? I don't think the issue gets much clearer, and clear it is. Why you would refuse to answer such questions directly is, I think, an ugly matter.

Not answering the questions again, canard.

I have answered the question. You just don't like my answer or you're reading it too fast.

I again repeat that the Holy Ghost could confirm that Joseph is a true prophet to one person and not confirm it to another person. Does that mean the Holy Ghost has said "false prophet" or simply "not for you to know", I'm not privy to every spiritual communication.

Do you presume that if someone has a spiritual experience that contradicts yours that they are wrong? That's the key question. Are they wrong? Or have you simply been given different information to reach your greatest height?

I think little of it because such broad, vague statements serve us little. That is irrelevant to the question of whether people receive contradictory revelation the kind of which I have explained. That we tell people different things everyday doesn't mean we tell them contradictory things.

And yet, if you read the inspired writings (our prophets tell us they are inspired) of Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Greek philosophy etc there will be some contradictions in them (as well as some beautiful universal similarities. The "golden rule" for example appears in nearly every culture, philosophy and theology). We shouldn't presume that the contradictions are where they have erred. I agree that there are some tenets of those faiths that I find difficult to accept and some that are applied in a way that I don't agree with. That might not mean that they are wrong though. Just not right for me.

If God needs one method/work stream for one people and a different one for another then I'm sure he has the skills to effectively do so.

lol I asked because if the HG did tell you all of this, given your previous remarks, they may very well just be ideas to help you 'rise to your higher potentials' whether actually true or not. According to what you said previously, you seem to have found plausible this idea which you aren't so forward now to defend.

I hope the ideas I have will help me to rise to my highest potential. Yes, I do believe they are inspired from the heavens. Yes they do appear to contradict the position of 'absolutists' and no I don't have a problem with that. If believing I am wrong, because it goes against what you consider to be your revealed understanding of the truth, helps you to rise to your highest, then I've no issue with that.

[canard78]

OK, I get it. All roads lead to Rome. And my path is individually structured to fit my needs and abilities but everything will gel into a common roadway, good for all, somewhere in the future. And this is supposed to be confirmed by the HG from his giving contradictory answers to different people?

I just don't buy it. This may be the new Mormonism but it sounds like a philosophy on roller skates, shifting and changing, trying to put itself in front of all comers.

When I accepted Mormonism, I was fully engaged, a TBM. When I left I knew what I was choosing and the consequences of my choices. I did not join, nor did I choose to leave a "one size fits all" dogma.

I think the answers to the HG inspired answers that give contradictory messages, will need to be dug from a much deeper well.

Maybe I've a shallow well, no worries.

I see only 3 possible answers to the issue of contradicting "remarkable epiphanies":

1) There is only one absolute truth. Only one true and living church. All others are false or only contain a portion of the truth.

2) Adapted curriculum. One absolute eventual objective (reaching your highest potential). Contradictions are a part of the blessing of individualised universalism.

3) It's all in our heads. There's contradictions because we are creating our own answers or being drawn to the answers of other people.

I'm happy to be proposed additional options. I'm sure there are more.

Out of interest, what's yours? What is the origin of the contradictions?