Holy Ghost: Says Different Things To Different People?

[Lightbearer]

What think ye?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry but I think the idea that the spirit of the Lord "lies" is a load of 21st century psychobable. Are we so afraid of offending someone that we are unable to "call a spade a spade"? The Holy Ghost is not going to tell me the First Vision and the Book of Mormon is true and someone else that it is untrue. I think the answer is much simpler however less "politiically correct"... the difference is in each individual. If the message is distorted it is because of our own interference not because God is sending out conflicting messages. I think there are a host of scriptures that attest to this idea. One comes to mind instantly:

"For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—" (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 123:12)

That is my explaination, which is much more complementary to the spirit than this "relative truth" idea.

[canard78]

Sorry but I think the idea that the spirit of the Lord "lies" is a load of 21st century psychobable. Are we so afraid of offending someone that we are unable to "call a spade a spade"? The Holy Ghost is not going to tell me the First Vision and the Book of Mormon is true and someone else that it is untrue. I think the answer is much simpler however less "politiically correct"... the difference is in each individual. If the message is distorted it is because of our own interference not because God is sending out conflicting messages. I think there are a host of scriptures that attest to this idea. One comes to mind instantly: That is my explaination, which is much more complementary to the spirit than this "relative truth" idea.

So is Plato, Confucius, Buddha etc the subtle craftiness of men or people inspired by the Holy Ghost?

And are Elder Uchtdorf and President Kimball using psycho-babble in the following:

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.

...

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.”

Does that mean that if someone has a spiritual witness that leads them away from and not towards the LDS church it can only be either their own minds/a false read or the devil misguiding them?

There's an EV group who actively encourage their group to pray about the Book of Mormon as they are so comfortable with the conviction that it's not true. I'll see if I can find the talk online again, but one talked about praying and getting the answer it was not true. What happened there? False read? Why should we presume that only Mormons have the ability to hear, understand and accept the voice of the spirit?

[canard78]

That is my explaination, which is much more complementary to the spirit than this "relative truth" idea.

I'm not describing "relative truth" - that's very different. I'm describing one absolute truth. The power and "church" of the Lamb. But many routes to it. Many personalised engagements with it. Even within Mormonism.

[bcuzbcuz]

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?

As always, I enjoy reading your posts. I've read your posts, all of them, on a variety of topics. I understand, I think, where you are coming from.

We don't always agree but you tackle each question with an openness that is admirable. I think your three options cover the field. I have, at least, tried two of the three. I may be off base but I think you have also tried two of the three, but not necessarily the same two.

Currently I would definitely classify myself as an adherent to option three. We believe what we "want" to believe. We find a religion that fits, like a jacket, that covers the important parts of what we think life consists of. Even though I've been inactive for more than 30 years I still form my opinions of the world around me, how I should live and where my values are placed, based on the training I recieved in my youth in the church. I could, even today, very easily, feel comfortable living within the confines of Mormon thought, and particularly comfortable with the social environment that it creates, were I to go against my need to follow honest endeavor. The old "to thyself be true" would catch me up. I couldn't "pretend" to be a true believer.

But I was once. Not a pretender but a true believer. Born into the church, almost. A mother who found Mormonism in her 30's and a father who never found religion at all. But my mother never wavered and stayed true and devoted to her dying day. I grew up to obtain, through study and prayer, a testimony of my own. I served a 2 1/2 year mission (that 1/2 year is very important!), ask any two year old. I baptized my wife, raised 6 kids and lived by all the precepts. I was convinced through a testimony from the Holy Ghost. During that time I would have only considered, contemplated and consecrated option number 1. There was no other option.

Life is/was easier as a true believer. Questions had one, well defined answer. If the church had declared a position, that was my opinion. If my wife and I were left to decide something ourselves, then prayer gave guidance and eventually the answer. Economically. we never griped about tithing, we had what we needed. Life was full of daily and weekly church activites. There was little time for idle hands.

Outside the church, when our kids became teenagers, many, many questions didn't have ready answers. Some of my kids are smokers to this day.. That still bothers me. When we found out that they had tried smoking, it was the usual hassle, serious talks and parental advice, but ultimately group pressures and other influences had a bigger pull. It would have been much easier to say, "you can't smoke because it is forbidden."

So wherein lie the origins of the contradictions I see? I was totally and completely convinced in the first 30 years of my life that the Holy Ghost gave answers. I was totally convinced that I had recieved guidance, with a clear cut, decisive answer. For the last 30 years of my life I have been and am equally convinced that what the church expounded, then and now, is not true. Both ideas can't be right.

If I'm wrong now, it won't be the first time.

[wenglund]

Sorry but I think the idea that the spirit of the Lord "lies" is a load of 21st century psychobable. Are we so afraid of offending someone that we are unable to "call a spade a spade"? The Holy Ghost is not going to tell me the First Vision and the Book of Mormon is true and someone else that it is untrue. I think the answer is much simpler however less "politiically correct"... the difference is in each individual. If the message is distorted it is because of our own interference not because God is sending out conflicting messages. I think there are a host of scriptures that attest to this idea. One comes to mind instantly: That is my explaination, which is much more complementary to the spirit than this "relative truth" idea.

I am not suggesting that God is lying. In fact, I don't believe he is. All I am suggesting is that he may rightly tell different people different things (including at times, seemingly contradictory things), and guide them onto different paths. See my thought experiment below.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

@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?

Well we can take this up from any angle you want but none of these you present here are even starters.

Let's start with the scripture and go from there.

Matt 7:15

15“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.16“You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?17“So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.18“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.19“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.20“So then, you will know them by their fruits.

This is a completely Pragmatic way of judging false prophets. IT SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT BEING CALLED OF GOD BECAUSE THAT CREATES AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL PROBLEM WHICH IS UNSOLVABLE. How can we know if he is "called of God" in the first place to judge who is false and who is not??

We can only know the mind and will of God (for us) by personal revelation. But that's not what the scripture is talking about here, at all. The scripture gives us a PRACTICAL SOLUTION of how we know if someone is called or not called- and that is by following the advice he gives and examining its fruits. This is straight Alma 32- we find true prophets by their FRUITS.

And of course your analogy of false alarm and false start just breaks down at the first glance.

False alarms are very clearly defined in the law. Do one and there might be criminal penalties if done deliberately under serious circumstances.

"False alarms" are not in nature anywhere- society and the law have defined them precisely. Same with "false starts"- perfectly clearly defined in the rules of sport which need to do so.

Yet even with these clear definitions, one requires judgement to decide if indeed a given situation fits the definitions or not. In an Olympic gold medal race, where the gold is at stake, there might be a HUGE disagreement over whether or not a given situation was or was not a "false start"

At our ward we have smoke detectors which are hard-wired into an alarm system which goes directly to the fire department when they go off. They go off all the time. Every time they go off we have to call the FD to tell them it was a "false alarm"- but no one goes to jail. On the other hand, the latest fun thing to do for celebrity stalkers in LA is to call up the SWAT team to celebrity homes to watch the fun as tens of thousands of dollars are spent by the police department responding with force to the false call.

So we have grandma burning the bread and we have deliberate malicious behavior- both of which are defined by society as "false alarms" - yet we have to judge between the two.

We have some mysterious way we are to know the mind and will of God, in an objective way, versus making a judgement call on the practical fruits of prophecy.

Both require a human judgement to decide what is "false" or not. Falsity is not out there floating around waiting to be summoned to give the command "FALSE" from heaven in an objective, scientific way!

As usual, when one thinks about it, it's not the way that Alvino represents it.

[mfbukowski]

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?

This thing needs to be deconstructed so badly, but who has the time?

You judge truth or falsity of everything by their "fruits". You continually think you have some objective line to truth and falsity independent of human judgement.

You do not.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Nah, about as far as you can get from there. Mostly my influences are the Pragmatists- William James, John Dewey- Richard Rorty, Ludwig Wittgenstein and some very contemporary guys that most have not heard of - yet.

If you want to actually get into this, start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency,_Irony,_and_Solidarity

[Lightbearer]

So is Plato, Confucius, Buddha etc the subtle craftiness of men or people inspired by the Holy Ghost?

And are Elder Uchtdorf and President Kimball using psycho-babble in the following:

Does that mean that if someone has a spiritual witness that leads them away from and not towards the LDS church it can only be either their own minds/a false read or the devil misguiding them?

There's an EV group who actively encourage their group to pray about the Book of Mormon as they are so comfortable with the conviction that it's not true. I'll see if I can find the talk online again, but one talked about praying and getting the answer it was not true. What happened there? False read? Why should we presume that only Mormons have the ability to hear, understand and accept the voice of the spirit?

As for God guiding those in other faiths I have no doubt He does. Did God guide Plato, Reformers, etc.? Yes of course, to a greater or lesser extent. But I am saying that He is not going to say yes the Book of Mormon is true and No it is not! That makes absolutely no sense. I do believe that a person can be a good honorable person and still be blinded to the restored Gospel of Christ. But all roads do not lead to Zion!

These other religions can prepare peoples hearts for the greater light of the restored Gospel, but if it harden the hearts and blinds the minds of it's followers to the fulness of the Gospel of Christ then it is not of God.

The following points to the need to accept truth when it is revealed to one:

"And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell."

(Book of Mormon | Alma 12:9-11)

From this I would suggest that yes some are led only in part because they are not ready for the fulness, but if they reject it in favor of the lesser light then yes the devil takes charge. Jesus and Satan will never see eye to eye. They will not compromise and neither should we. If any relgion, teaching, doctrine, society, or tradition leads one away from the fullness of the restored Gospel then it is not of God.

[mfbukowski]

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.

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.

Well I think we could have some interesting discussions, but this is a busy time for me.

Rather than re-hash the history of philosophy, I really do think that philosophy, like science and medicine, has improved over the years because you now have 2000 years of guys re-examining every argument Plato and Aristotle used and demolishing most of them. They were without question perhaps the greatest ever, but there are flaws in all these arguments- they were human beings after all.

To me, there is a reason there are few to any trained contemporary philosophers who hold these views, except as I said, the Catholics who have reasons to defend positions most have given up on hundreds of years ago. You will find all of these arguments coming out of Notre Dame or Georgetown or other Catholic universities.

And that's fine- more power to them. There are some brilliant minds in these areas- no question. Very very smart people believe these things and make these arguments. But in my opinion, it is like a brilliant engineer figuring out ways to prop up a historic building that is about to fall over. It is like saving Venice from sinking into the sea. It can be made to work if one is motivated enough and uses enough ingenuity to pull it off. http://www.pbs.org/w...ing-venice.html

But for me, I see no reason to save the philosophical "sinking Venice" especially when postulating the existence of Platonic Forms is totally incompatible with an immanent, embodied God, and the Restoration, and virtually no one else is arguing in their favor, except those few totally committed to their cause for other reasons.

I don't know- that's just the way I see it I guess.

Edited April 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

It appears that most of us agree that God can give different answers to different people, but some of us are reluctant to believe that those differing answers might be contradictory. Some of us suppose that if God gave contradictory answers, then that would make him a liar. And, so, they conclude that since God cannot lie, then he doesn't give contradictory answers.

However, this presupposes that "truth" can't be contradictory. Whereas, if "truth" is, in some respects, contradictory, then God would be lying were he to state those contradictory "truths" in ways that aren't contradictory, and he would be telling the "truth" by stating contradictory "truths" contradictorily. Right?

So, here is a thought experiment to demonstrate that "truths" can be contradictory: Suppose you are God, and you have people praying to you from throughout the world, from all walks of life and stages of development, and throughout the ages, and apart from whether the questions are appropriate to God, would you give the same exact binary (true or false, yes or no) answer to each of the following questions, and this to every one of the people who have, or is now, or will ever pray to you? Or, might you answer true in some cases and false in others, or yes in some cases and no in others?:

1. It is now 9 O'clock?

2. Is the sky blue?

3. Thou shalt not kill?

4. Are dress hems above the ankle immodest?

5. Should I marry person "X" (suppose multiple men are asking if they should marry the same woman, or vice versa).

6. Are the following things true: Beethoven's 5th Symphony, the color red, Tae Bo full body fitness system, black holes,

7. God, are you spirit?

8. Is there one God or multiple Gods?

9. Is it wrong to walk through someone else's orchard or field and to take some of the food to eat?

I have many more, but these should suffice for now.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 15, 2013 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

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?

Great stuff- that quote alone from E. Uchtdorf should make the case that this belief- that God inspires people who disagree about religion- is part and parcel of Mormonism.

To me THAT is the answer to the OP right there. Yes- the HG does indeed say different things to different people! Case closed!

[Lightbearer]

So case closed God can tell one person that the Book of Mormon is true and also tell another it is not true? Sorry but last time I looked God defined truth as:

"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:24-25)

I am sorry but I cannot get past that part where we must accept the restored Gospel or we are without the fulness of truth. Either the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's one true Church or it is not. Of course nobody cares what I think here so I will bow out of this thread. Yet I know what is true and no amount of dialogue or philosophy is going to change that. Also I really like being pitting against proof quotes of the prophets teachings out of context just to discredit me. While they may accept the fact that God does inspire others for good they are not saying that is the route to salvation in His kingdom.

[mfbukowski]

So case closed God can tell one person that the Book of Mormon is true and also tell another it is not true? Sorry but last time I looked God defined truth as:

I am sorry but I cannot get past that part where we must accept the restored Gospel or we are without the fulness of truth. Either the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's one true Church or it is not. Of course nobody cares what I think here so I will bow out of this thread. Yet I know what is true and no amount of dialogue or philosophy is going to change that. Also I really like being pitting against proof quotes of the prophets teachings out of context just to discredit me. While they may accept the fact that God does inspire others for good they are not saying that is the route to salvation in His kingdom.

Nobody said that, and I think you are missing the point. The knowledge of things as they ARE is what is revealed by God to individuals.

You have two choices- 1- those who say that others have experiences which direct them into a direction other than the church are lying or mistaken or 2- accept the possibilities that God needs to bring others in different ways to the same truth.

So only you have the true knowledge to proof-text and you are right while others are wrong? That theoretically may be true, but it is a rotten way to convert people to your position.

I think that there is a reason we do baptisms for the dead, and that is because some people only find the gospel after they die, even if they are looking earnestly here, and have come close while perhaps having never heard of Joseph Smith.

Why do you think we do baptisms for the dead? Are we all supposed to be perfect before we die and have a perfect knowledge of these things? That is not the plan.

God wants us to accept the truth, but he knows not all of us are ready for it in this life, but he still leads us closer. I don't know why you would deny that other churches have some light and that some light is better than no light.

A "knowledge of things as they are" does not come all at once- not even to you. It is line by line, step by step and each step closer can be inspired.

[mfbukowski]

It appears that most of us agree that God can give different answers to different people, but some of us are reluctant to believe that those differing answers might be contradictory. Some of us suppose that if God gave contradictory answers, then that would make him a liar. And, so, they conclude that since God cannot lie, then he doesn't give contradictory answers.

However, this presupposes that "truth" can't be contradictory. Whereas, if "truth" is, in some respects, contradictory, then God would be lying were he to state those contradictory "truths" in ways that aren't contradictory, and he would be telling the "truth" by stating contradictory "truths" contradictorily. Right?

So, here is a thought experiment to demonstrate that "truths" can be contradictory: Suppose you are God, and you have people praying to you from throughout the world, from all walks of life and stages of development, and throughout the ages, and apart from whether the questions are appropriate to God, would you give the same exact binary (true or false, yes or no) answer to each of the following questions, and this to every one of the people who have, or is now, or will ever pray to you? Or, might you answer true in some cases and false in others, or yes in some cases and no in others?:

1. It is now 9 O'clock?

2. Is the sky blue?

3. Thou shalt not kill?

4. Are dress hems above the ankle immodest?

5. Should I marry person "X" (suppose multiple men are asking if they should marry the same woman, or vice versa).

6. Are the following things true: Beethoven's 5th Symphony, the color red, Tae Bo full body fitness system, black holes,

7. God, are you spirit?

8. Is there one God or multiple Gods?

9. Is it wrong to walk through someone else's orchard or field and to take some of the food to eat?

I have many more, but these should suffice for now.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

+1!

[Ahab]

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.

I don't know what I said that gave you that impression, but I'd actually think more like you think Wade would think.

I believe lots of people are led by the Holy Ghost without realizing the ideas they get which they accept and agree with are coming from the Holy Ghost. It's just a name thing in that situation, with the person who receives those ideas not realizing the name of the person giving them inspiration or the ideas that they agree with. That's why it sometimes helps to think in very basic terms, like maybe to refer to things in terms of them being either good or evil. All good thoughts come to us from God, initially, and all evil thoughts come to us from Satan, even if we don't use the names of "God" or "Satan" when distinguishing who the thoughts have come from.

[Ahab]

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?

I believe there are different ways to define what truth or being true is, just as with all other words in our vocabulary.

1. another word for reality or what is real, in the sense that a true tree is a real tree of some kind with there being many kinds of trees.

2. another word for correct, as commonly used in True/False questions, like when asking if the definition above is true while realizing I did give that definition in reality.

...

[Ahab]

It appears that most of us agree that God can give different answers to different people, but some of us are reluctant to believe that those differing answers might be contradictory. Some of us suppose that if God gave contradictory answers, then that would make him a liar. And, so, they conclude that since God cannot lie, then he doesn't give contradictory answers.

However, this presupposes that "truth" can't be contradictory. Whereas, if "truth" is, in some respects, contradictory, then God would be lying were he to state those contradictory "truths" in ways that aren't contradictory, and he would be telling the "truth" by stating contradictory "truths" contradictorily. Right?

So, here is a thought experiment to demonstrate that "truths" can be contradictory: Suppose you are God, and you have people praying to you from throughout the world, from all walks of life and stages of development, and throughout the ages, and apart from whether the questions are appropriate to God, would you give the same exact binary (true or false, yes or no) answer to each of the following questions, and this to every one of the people who have, or is now, or will ever pray to you? Or, might you answer true in some cases and false in others, or yes in some cases and no in others?:

1. It is now 9 O'clock?

2. Is the sky blue?

3. Thou shalt not kill?

4. Are dress hems above the ankle immodest?

5. Should I marry person "X" (suppose multiple men are asking if they should marry the same woman, or vice versa).

6. Are the following things true: Beethoven's 5th Symphony, the color red, Tae Bo full body fitness system, black holes,

7. God, are you spirit?

8. Is there one God or multiple Gods?

9. Is it wrong to walk through someone else's orchard or field and to take some of the food to eat?

I have many more, but these should suffice for now.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

1. God's answers to anyone in the same circumstances will be in agreement, with no contradictions.

2. God's answers aren't limited to Yes/No answers, or even to whether or not something is good. His answers come to us as thoughts and feelings regarding the questions we have in our own mind when we ask, and when he answers we then translate his answers into our own words and feelings as we try to understand what he told us.

3. We should be aware that words have more than one meaning so that a question using the same words can also have more than one meaning. For example, the word "God" can be interpreted in more than one way.

[Vance]

1. It is now 9 O'clock?

Define 9 O'clock.

2. Is the sky blue?

Define blue?

3. Thou shalt not kill?

Animals? Plants? Snails? What?

4. Are dress hems above the ankle immodest?

Define "immodest".

5. Should I marry person "X" (suppose multiple men are asking if they should marry the same woman, or vice versa).

Maybe all of those men "should" marry her, but which one "should" she marry?

6. Are the following things true: Beethoven's 5th Symphony, the color red, Tae Bo full body fitness system, black holes,

That is a dumb question. Does God answer dumb questions?

7. God, are you spirit?

Of course not, he is a burning fire.

8. Is there one God or multiple Gods?

Yes!

9. Is it wrong to walk through someone else's orchard or field and to take some of the food to eat?

depends on whether you have permission or not.

I have many more, but these should suffice for now.

Are they as stupid as these?

[wenglund]

1. God's answers to anyone in the same circumstances will be in agreement, with no contradictions.

Correct. However, God's answers to people in different circumstances will be different, and at times diametrically opposed. That is the point.

2. God's answers aren't limited to Yes/No answers, or even to whether or not something is good. His answers come to us as thoughts and feelings regarding the questions we have in our own mind when we ask, and when he answers we then translate his answers into our own words and feelings as we try to understand what he told us.

The answers are often dependent upon the nature of question being asked. If the question is asked in a closed-ended, binary way (as I have done here), it is often answered in a binary way, or the subtle answer may be interpreted in a binary way--though not necessarily. If God is asked binary questions, and he gives a binary answer, then, as the questions I posed illustrate, the answer to each question may be yes for some people and no for others, true for some people and false for others. In other words, the binary answers may be contradictory--which is my point.

3. We should be aware that words have more than one meaning so that a question using the same words can also have more than one meaning. For example, the word "God" can be interpreted in more than one way.

I was fully aware of that when I asked the questions. In fact, that is why I asked certain questions. Two different people may ask the same exact question, but have different meanings in mind. If God answers the question according to what is meant, then he may give divergent, and perhaps diametrically opposing answers--which is my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

[Ahab]

That is a dumb question. Does God answer dumb questions?

There are no dumb questions, and Yes he does answer even the questions you think of as dumb questions.

Are they as stupid as these?

Questions aren't stupid, either.

[Ahab]

Correct. However, God's answers to people in different circumstances will be different, and at times diametrically opposed. That is the point.

That is a good point, but it's important to understand why and how the circumstances can make a difference.

The answers are often dependent upon the nature of question being asked. If the question is asked in a closed-ended, binary way (as I have done here), it is often answered in a binary way, or the subtle answer may be interpreted in a binary way--though not necessarily. If God is asked binary questions, and he gives a binary answer, then, as the questions I posed illustrate, the answer to each question may be yes for some people and no for others, true for some people and false for others. In other words, the binary answers may be contradictory--which is my point.

The truth contained in each binary answer will be in agreement with all other things that are true, though, thus it isn't the truth that is in contradiction but the relative circumstances associated with each issue. That is my point.

I was fully aware of that when I asked the questions. In fact, that is why I asked certain questions. Two different people may ask the same exact question, but have different meanings in mind. If God answers the question according to what is meant, then he may give divergent, and perhaps diametrically opposing answers--which is my point.

In those cases I would say the questions are not the same exact question, then, even though the words may be exactly the same, because although the words are the same the question each person has in their mind is different.

[wenglund]

Define 9 O'clock.

Define blue?

Animals? Plants? Snails? What?

Define "immodest".

I will leave that to the questioner to define it for themselves--which leads to my point.

Maybe all of those men "should" marry her, but which one "should" she marry?

You are missing the point of the exercise.

That is a dumb question. Does God answer dumb questions?

It is only dumb because you are missing the point of the exercise.

Of course not, he is a burning fire.

That isn't how Christ answered the women of Samaria in Jn 4:24, thus evidence of a contradiction--which is my point.

Yes!

Since the questions are seemingly contradictory, then answering "yes" to both is contradictory--which is my point.

depends on whether you have permission or not.

It also depends upon certain cultural norms. Since some people have permission and others do not, God's answer would be yes for some people, and no for others. Depending upon people's circumstances, then, God will give diametrically opposing, or contradictory answers.

Are they as stupid as these?

Only to idiots who seem unable to grasp the point of the questions. So, in your case, probably so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 15, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

That is a good point, but it's important to understand why and how the circumstances can make a difference.

Correct. However, at this point, and for the purposes of this thread, my intent is but to demonstrate that God may give seemingly contradictory answers to our prayers. The "how" and "why" can be explained later.

The truth contained in each binary answer will be in agreement with all other things that are true, though, thus it isn't the truth that is in contradiction but the relative circumstances associated with each issue. That is my point.

Agreed. But, your point isn't germane to the subject of the thread, whereas mine is. Again, the point of this thread is to demonstrate that because of different and contradictory circumstances, God gives seemingly contradictory answers.

In those cases I would say the questions are not the same exact question, then, even though the words may be exactly the same, because although the words are the same the question each person has in their mind is different.

Agreed. But, don't mis the point I am making in regards to the topic of the thread. People may ask a question with the same exact words, and because they mean different things to different people, God will give different, and seemingly contradictory answers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 15, 2013 by wenglund

[Ahab]

Correct. However, at this point, and for the purposes of this thread, my intent is but to demonstrate that God may give seemingly contradictory answers to our pray. The "how" and "why" can be explained later.

Well, I was mainly thinking of one of the ways "how" they can be contradictory is in only being "seeming contradictory" in regards to the truth. The truth, itself, isn't contradictory, although it can sometimes seem to be that way to some people.

The point of this thread is to demonstrate that because of different and contradictory circumstances, God gives seemingly contradictory answers.

Or, as I would say, God gives answers which to some of us may seem to contradict something else he has told us. Once we put his answers in the correct context, though, and correctly understand what he meant, then we can see there is no contradiction.

Like how some people think the Book of Mormon and Bible contradict each other because of how they interpret the scriptures.

Agreed. But, don't mis the point I am making in regards to the topic of the thread. People may ask a question with the same exact words, and because they mean different things to different people, God will give different, and seemingly contradictory answers.

They don't always seem to contradict, though, so labeling them as "seemingly contradictory" only works for a certain audience, an audience which doesn't see how they do not contradict. I think maybe we're looking at this issue from 2 different perspectives.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Ahab