Bom Promise Vs. D&C Promise - Is One Superior To The Other?

[Bikeemikey]

We often use the logical chain: if the BOM is true then Joseph was a prophet. If Joseph was a prophet then the church is true.

My question: is that chain of logical reasoning any more valid than the following.

If the D&C is true then Joseph was a prophet. If Joseph was a prophet then the church is true.

I am not wanting this thread to be about whether or not either logical argument is necessarily correct. I am interested more in the idea that if one were ale to arrive at the truth of the church via the BOM argument could one also arrive at the same conclusion via the D&C chain (possibly with out even knowing or considering the BOM)?

Edited July 14, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[BlueDreams]

Did you mean to put D&C for the second chain?

[Questing Beast]

Yes, he did if we're both reading that right....

[Bikeemikey]

Did you mean to put D&C for the second chain?

Yep. Thanks. Just edited.

[Questing Beast]

The BoM came first as a single revelation. The D&C is far more complex and problematic. Parts of it surely point to JS being a prophet, other parts are simply not proof of anything more than that he got some things wrong, e.g. the attempt to sell the BoM copyright in Canada, and the references to "Lamanites" with the BoM understanding that they are literal descendants of Laman and Lemuel. So, no, the D&C cannot be used in the same way in a logical chain to "JS was a prophet", the same way the BoM is supposed to. There are those who believe that JS was a prophet up till the time the Church got organized, then proceeded to skid off the rails after that....

[Bikeemikey]

The BoM came first as a single revelation. The D&C is far more complex and problematic. Parts of it surely point to JS being a prophet, other parts are simply not proof of anything more than that he got some things wrong, e.g. the attempt to sell the BoM copyright in Canada, and the references to "Lamanites" with the BoM understanding that they are literal descendants of Laman and Lemuel. So, no, the D&C cannot be used in the same way in a logical chain to "JS was a prophet", the same way the BoM is supposed to. There are those who believe that JS was a prophet up till the time the Church got organized, then proceeded to skid off the rails after that....

Is it any more or less problematic with the historical criticisms of the BOM or the questions of authorship? At least there is no ambiguity that the D&C is exactly what it says it is.

[Questing Beast]

The authorship of the BoM is not seriously challenged. JS even styled himself "the author" in the 1830 edition. Why it has to be historically authentic is the fault of the Church, not JS. He believed he had received an accurate vision of the ancient inhabitants. The result was scripture. The Bible has plenty of "warts" as well, just not the same kind as the BoM. It is scripture upon which the context of the BoM makes sense. Without the Bible there would be no BoM to be made sense of. Without the Bible there would be no "restoration" of anything, so no D&C. I think you're probably making a non point?...

[canard78]

We often use the logical chain: if the BOM is true then Joseph was a prophet. If Joseph was a prophet then the church is true.

My question: is that chain of logical reasoning any more valid than the following.

If the D&C is true then Joseph was a prophet. If Joseph was a prophet then the church is true.

I am not wanting this thread to be about whether or not either logical argument is necessarily correct. I am interested more in the idea that if one were ale to arrive at the truth of the church via the BOM argument could one also arrive at the same conclusion via the D&C chain (possibly with out even knowing or considering the BOM)?

I don't think so. If the D&C were my starting point and the Book of Mormon didn't exist then I'd have probably dismissed if all long ago.

The D&C clearly came out of Joseph's mouth (whatever the source of his inspiration). The date and place of if it sets it firmly in the 1800.

The Book of Mormon on the other hand...

[canard78]

The authorship of the BoM is not seriously challenged. JS even styled himself "the author" in the 1830 edition. Why it has to be historically authentic is the fault of the Church, not JS. He believed he had received an accurate vision of the ancient inhabitants. The result was scripture. The Bible has plenty of "warts" as well, just not the same kind as the BoM. It is scripture upon which the context of the BoM makes sense. Without the Bible there would be no BoM to be made sense of. Without the Bible there would be no "restoration" of anything, so no D&C. I think you're probably making a non point?...

And the gold plates...?

[Calm]

JS even styled himself "the author" in the 1830 edition.

You need to rethink what that actually means.

Anti-Mormons have long argued that Joseph Smith must have been the creator of the Book of Mormon text since he is identified as the “Author” on the title page and in other sections of the first edition. Critics are eager to point out that in the next edition (which was printed in 1837) the Prophet’s designation was changed to “Translator,” and in their minds this is evidence of a cover-up.

But, as usual, the critics have ignored several important points in connection with this matter. Both the Copyright Act of 1790 and the supplementary Act of 1802 referred numerous times to the rights granted to an “author or proprietor” of a book but no provision was made in either of these edicts for the copyright holder to be designated as a translator. Translation rights were not addressed in American copyright law until the year 1870. As can be seen on this slide, the only option presented to the applicant in the bottom pre-printed section of the copyright form was to declare oneself as an author or a proprietor. When the Book of Mormon copyright application was filled out on 11 June 1829 Joseph Smith was listed in the top section as the “author” of the volume. This designation is not in the handwriting of Joseph Smith and may, therefore, have been assigned by the clerk of the district court. But notice that in the descriptive section that was to be filled out by the applicant Joseph Smith is identified as both the “author and proprietor.” This means that the Prophet, or possibly an agent who was sent to transact this business at the copyright office, chose to claim all of the rights allowable by law. The reason why this particular action was taken is currently unknown.

Even though Joseph Smith was identified as the author a total of six times in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon he also provided information, within this very same edition, that clarified what this term meant in relation to him. On this slide we see that both on the title page and on the copyright notice the Prophet published the same description of the content of the plates which he said he translated from the last leaf of the unsealed portion of the Book of Mormon. This description, which was written in ancient times, foretells that the modern text would be derived through the process of interpreting the plates. It is further indicated that the interpretation would be brought about by the gift and power of God. So, even though Joseph Smith is identified on both of these pages as the author of the Book of Mormon it is also specified that the text was derived through a divinely-assisted interpretive process. In the other two portions of the 1830 Book of Mormon where Joseph Smith is identified as the “author” there are even more specific clarifications of this term. In the Preface, for instance, it is indicated no less than six times that Joseph Smith translated the book. It should be noted that portions of the Preface were derived from section 10 of the Doctrine and Covenants and in that section, which is traditionally dated to the Summer of 1828, there are 13 separate references to Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon text. And finally, there is the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses. In the 1830 rendition of this document it is clearly stated that the Prophet “translated” the golden plates, even though he is also designated as the “Author” of the book. To recapóIn all four documents in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon where Joseph Smith is identified as the author of the text there is also a clarification that he is the interpreter or translator of the text. When the Prophet was listed as the “Translator” on the title page of the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon it was nothing new.

http://www.fairlds.o...mentary-sources Edited July 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Remarkable timing, a friend just happened to bring additional evidence that has been discovered since Matt Brown presented in 2004 to my attention (without regard to this thread) so I will post it here:

Palmyra, Wayne, co., N.Y., Nov. 9th, 1829. Sir; - You wrote to Mr. harris, some time since, respecting the book of Mormon of which he was concerned in the publication. Your first inquiry was, whether it was proper to say, that Joseph Smith Jr., was the author? If I rightly understand the meaning of the word author, it is, the first beginner, or mover of any thing, or a writer. Now Joseph Smith Jr., certainly was the writer of the work, called the book of Mormon, which was written in ancient Egyptian characters, - which was a dead record to us until translated. And he, by a gift from God, has translated it into our language. Certainly he was the writer of it, and could be no less than the author. This record which gives an account of the first inhabitants of this continent, is engraved on plates, which have the appearance of gold; and they are of very curious workmanship. The reason stated in a prophecy written before the coming of Christ in the flesh, why the record should be shown to all the world, at the time of its coming forth to the children of men is that the book should be sealed, by the power of God. For the things of God, knoweth no man but the spirit of God. The prophecy also states there shall also be a revelation sealed in the book, which will reveal all things from the foundation of the world to the end thereof. And because of the iniquity of the world, at the time of its coming forth; it shall be hid from the eyes of the world; that the eyes of none shall behold it, (save it be that three witnesses shall behold it by the power of God) besides him, to whom the book should be delivered. And none other should see it, only a few, - if it should be wisdom in God. And after that which was not sealed was translated, the book should again be hid-up, unto the Lord, that it might not be destroyed; and come froth again, in the own due time of him, who knows all things unto the children of men. You also wished Mr. harris to inform you respecting his seeing this book, whether there could not possibly have been some juggling at the bottom of it. A few words on that point may suffice. - It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field, at the time we saw the record, if which it has been spoken, brought and laid before us, by an angel, arrayed in glorious light, ascend out of the midst of heaven. Now if this is human juggling - judge ye. Yours with much esteem, Oliver H. P. Cowdery. P.S. I write this at the request of Messrs. Harris, and others. The edition of this work now printing will not possibly be finished before the first of next February 1830.

http://www.juvenilei...-erin-jennings/

Sorry for the loss of formatting, I suggest you read it at the link as it might be easier due to spacing.

He also provided me with a link to the original copyright document, which I will post since the slides don't work for me**** from that presentation and therefore may not work for others:

http://josephsmithpa...on-11-june-1829

******slides are there, for some reason when I am in Safari they are being blocked, but in Firefox I can see them just fine.

Edited July 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[CV75]

I am interested more in the idea that if one were ale to arrive at the truth of the church via the BOM argument could one also arrive at the same conclusion via the D&C chain (possibly with out even knowing or considering the BOM)?

I think so -- I arrived at the conclusion of the truth of the Church after reading a pamphlet and aking the Lord my question. I hadn't read either the Book of Mormon or the D&C.

[Questing Beast]

Spaulding or Rigdon are credited as original "authors" of the BoM too. But JS is the only author, as it came through him.

Witnesses to the gold plates are unimpressive, as Strang had seven of his own, plus actual plates until the early 20th century, and scriptures resulting therefrom, and he also managed to engage in plural marriage and get himself killed twelve years after JS. Most of the Smith family followed J. J. Strang for a while, along with David Whitmer and Martin Harris, et al. other prominent Mormons. If the BoM proves JS a prophet, so does Strang's book, if you get a spiritual witness by praying to know. And so it goes for every other religious claim. "Ya gottawanna" first, though....

[Robert F. Smith]

Spaulding or Rigdon are credited as original "authors" of the BoM too. But JS is the only author, as it came through him.

Witnesses to the gold plates are unimpressive, as Strang had seven of his own, plus actual plates until the early 20th century, and scriptures resulting therefrom, and he also managed to engage in plural marriage and get himself killed twelve years after JS. Most of the Smith family followed J. J. Strang for a while, along with David Whitmer and Martin Harris, et al. other prominent Mormons. If the BoM proves JS a prophet, so does Strang's book, if you get a spiritual witness by praying to know. And so it goes for every other religious claim. "Ya gottawanna" first, though....

Does this mean that one must desire a religious claim to be true before praying to know, and that is the true, subjective source of confirmation?

Is truth in such cases merely a social construction? And are Strang's claims every bit as valid as Joseph Smith's?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

We often use the logical chain: if the BOM is true then Joseph was a prophet. If Joseph was a prophet then the church is true.

My question: is that chain of logical reasoning any more valid than the following.

If the D&C is true then Joseph was a prophet. If Joseph was a prophet then the church is true.

I am not wanting this thread to be about whether or not either logical argument is necessarily correct. I am interested more in the idea that if one were ale to arrive at the truth of the church via the BOM argument could one also arrive at the same conclusion via the D&C chain (possibly with out even knowing or considering the BOM)?

Sure- why not?

I guess the implications of that sort of question are questioning whether prophets are always prophets with any utterance that comes out of their mouth, and I think we would universally agree that that is NOT the case.

But then we get into the whole discussion of what it means for THE CHURCH to be "true", and that has been discussed ad infinitum.

My inclination is that I suppose we could get to pick and choose our doctrines as inspired or not, and as long as we can answer the baptismal interview and temple recommend interview questions truthfully, we would be "members".

Barring that, we would be "interested non-members" I suppose.

I think the real question is - why are you asking the question in the first place? What do you want to do with the answer? It seems you are struggling with some other problem which is not disclosed and that you think this question might answer.

It's probably better to ask the real question and cut to the chase.

`

[mfbukowski]

Does this mean that one must desire a religious claim to be true before praying to know, and that is the true, subjective source of confirmation?

Is truth in such cases merely a social construction? And are Strang's claims every bit as valid as Joseph Smith's?

This is itself a fascinating question, and it brings into account the entire question of a phenomenological approach or pragmatic or social constructivist approach to truth itself.

I think we are left with two options: dualism with its horribly difficult problems or more of a pragmatic/phenomenological approach which yes, does involve social construction to one degree or other.

But the real question of course is what you are suggesting: that religious experience is "all in our mind" and our desire to believe is what is the source of our confirmation experiences.

The ultimate answer to that question, I think is that it is unknowable. Then we have the question of whether or not that fact makes a difference. And I think that the answer to that is also unknowable. But that is where faith comes in.

So I think that in the final analysis- whatever we pick, be it dualism or pragmatism/phenomenology we have the question of whether or not religious experience is "real" or "all in your mind". Under a dualistic approach, the alternative "all in your mind" means that religious experience can never be considered "true".

However in a constructivist view- it doesn't matter. In a sense EVERYTHING is "all in our mind" from the beginning anyway- reality is socially constructed our of our personal and collective experiences with the world.

It was my background in this latter approach- specifically Pragmatism - which allowed me to consider my religious experiences as "valid" in the first place.

In a dualistic, correspondence approach, there is no hope for religious experience being considered "valid"- that is why I am so opposed to the correspondence theory.

[mfbukowski]

Is truth in such cases merely a social construction? And are Strang's claims every bit as valid as Joseph Smith's?

A constructivist approach does not imply that Strang's claims are any stronger or weaker than Smith's claims- clearly the evidence in my opinion is Joseph's side.

A Constructivist approach does not distort evidence or decide which evidence is stronger- it just questions the idea of "evidence" and how it is grounded, in the first place.

[strappinglad]

I am aware of Moroni's promise re: the BoM . Can someone point me to a similar promise re: the D&C ?

[Questing Beast]

Does this mean that one must desire a religious claim to be true before praying to know, and that is the true, subjective source of confirmation?

Is truth in such cases merely a social construction? And are Strang's claims every bit as valid as Joseph Smith's?

As Strang's very brief foray into religion making matches JS's model in all the particulars, yes, his claims are just as valid on the same basis as JS's claims. And I don't know anyone who came kicking and screaming into the Church against all of their pet and preconceived notions, being disabused in spite of themselves. That goes totally against so many scriptures such as "seek and you shall find". I'm reminded of the Samuel L. Jackson character, Jules Winnfield, in Pulp Fiction, who is converted to belief in God because of a metaphysical experience where he (and his partner, Vincent Vega, John Travolta) should have been shot and probably killed. Winnfield is dumbfounded, Vega sees nothing. But Winnfield obviously wanted to believe all along, or he would not have seen the very same bullet holes in the walls behind them and taken that for a "sign". He reached for and embraced a change in outlook. I thought it would be interesting to fast-forward say ten years, and see where Winnfield was taken by his religious faith: possibly ministering to troubled youth in the ghetto or similar: and perhaps being quite as troubled and troubling as "General Butt Naked", a real life villain turned religious guru. Religious conviction, the real thing, is always voluntary, but is seldom if ever simple.... Edited July 15, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

...

In a dualistic, correspondence approach, there is no hope for religious experience being considered "valid"- that is why I am so opposed to the correspondence theory.

Would you please give a little bit more on "correspondence theory"? I have never heard or read the term before....

[mfbukowski]

Would you please give a little bit more on "correspondence theory"? I have never heard or read the term before....

From another thread:

Thanks for the post. I must admit that I am weak in my knowledge of theology since my training has been in philosophy at secular universities where theology is not thought, erroneously I think, to be not "rigorous". That's their problem, but I do not claim to be an expert in all that is happening in theology, so admittedly I have a lot of catching up to do there.

But one of my bugaboos is the Correspondence Theory of Truth which basically says that language "represents" reality. Long story short, I don't buy it because in order for language to "represent" reality, in order to check how well it does in fact "represent" it, we would have to magically get OUTSIDE of language, look at "reality" as it is independent of our perceptions OF reality- and essentially say "Yep- it corresponds" or "No- we got it wrong".

You can't do that. Words are words and they stand on their own. In a sense we cannot get outside of them.

Think about how you would do that. You see a cat on a mat, and say "The cat is on the mat". There is no other way of communicating that without words. You are saying something about the state of your perceptions. Because we share perceptions, we know what those words mean, but you can't get outside of the words any more than you can use words to describe the sound of running water or the sound of a trumpet or the proverbial taste of salt, or the smell of lavender to someone who has never experienced them.

We can say "It smells like onions" and know exactly what that means, but if you have never smelled an onion the sentence would be meaningless.

That is because LANGUAGE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE WORLD. It communicates our perceptions to others with similar perceptions but that is about all it can do. If I don't "know what you're saying" no communication can happen. Even the words "The cat is on the mat" presume that you know what the word "cat" means, that you have perceived cats before as opposed to dogs or an ostrich, or that you have at least seen pictures of cats or their descriptions or seen pictures of them.

We know what a unicorn is even though they do not "exist" in the world because it is irrelevant for something to exist to talk about it. What we talk about is our perceptions- not about the "world itself" whatever that even means.

So for correspondence or representation to work, we would have to get outside of our perceptions to see if indeed what we said corresponded to some reality independent of our perceptions and see if what we said corresponded to what was outside our perceptions.

All we have is words- I believe (note the religious word believe there) that all logical thought MUST be in words. I think that direct experience is non-linguistic, and that experience (or "appearances" if you will) ARE reality. Again this being somewhat metaphysical discourse here, it is a non-falsifiable belief about the nature of what we call "real".

So I have no clue how an "effect" can be said to "resemble" a "cause."

I presume they have dealt with the whole issue of what Hume said about causes- but unfortunately though I know Hume, I don't know what these guys say about that.

In case you haven't figured out the subtle message here, I don't think Neoplatonism in any form works so well. So I am suspicious!

Also, here:

http://theomorphicman.blogspot.com/2012/08/common-sense-correspondence-theory-and.html

Edited July 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Questing Beast]

From another thread:

Also, here:

http://theomorphicma...theory-and.html

"If God is a Man, then humanism becomes theology". I like it.

"Propositions correspond to the way things are in the world- if they correspond, they are called "true" and if they do not correspond to "reality" they are termed "false"."

"But there arises a problem. Do we actually see things as they "really are" or is what we see a construction put together by our brains?"

Needless concern is going on here. If you take the paradigm of egocentric universes to be true, then no two are precisely alike, and any attempt to communicate with another egocentric universe (a person) is perforce limited to "language". No concept can be put into language that exists outside the mind of that egocentric universe. Unperceived concepts are not part of its reality. I experienced this very recently in attempting to get anything out of The Gospel of Thomas, a collection of purported "Jesus sayings". Largely it was utterly alien to me, with most of it having no context that exists in my reality, and interspersed with familiar sayings that end up in the Synoptic Gospels, but devoid of even that context for the most part. It struck me as vapid, i.e. meaningless, and therefore not genuine "Jesus sayings". I made that determination. Another person might possess context to make sense out of the purported Jesus sayings, then they would be part of his/her reality. I don't see how we can escape "correspondence theory". The correspondence is individual judgment, the only kind that there Is....

[mfbukowski]

I don't see how we can escape "correspondence theory". The correspondence is individual judgment, the only kind that there Is....

I don't really want to get into it, this is a technical problem in philosophy which I suppose one must even be trained to see.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, unfortunately many many philosophers disagree with you.

The objection that may well have been the most effective in causing discontent with the correspondence theory is based on an epistemological concern. In a nutshell, the objection is that a correspondence theory of truth must inevitably lead into skepticism about the external world because the required correspondence between our thoughts and reality is not ascertainable. Ever since Berkeley's attack on the representational theory of the mind, objections of this sort have enjoyed considerable popularity. It is typically pointed out that we cannot step outside our own minds to compare our thoughts with mind-independent reality. Yet—so the objection continues—on the correspondence theory of truth, this is precisely what we would have to do to gain knowledge. We would have to access reality as it is in itself, independently of our cognition of it, and determine whether our thoughts correspond to it. Since this is impossible, since all our access to the world is mediated by our cognition, the correspondence theory makes knowledge impossible (cf. Kant 1800, intro vii). Assuming that the resulting skepticism is unacceptable, the correspondence theory has to be rejected, and some other account of truth, an epistemic (anti-realist) account of some sort, has to be put in its place (Cf., e.g., Blanshard 1941.)

http://plato.stanfor...rrespondence/#9

I honestly didn't make this up myself, though I wish I did. I would be the most important philosopher ever if this was all my own idea. After all, it goes back hundreds of years.

But I am firm in my claim that correspondence theory is the enemy of those who think that spiritual experience is in any sense "real".

Precisely what do revelations "correspond to then, if they are "real" and how can they be said to be "true"? The simple reality is that they cannot be said to be "true" on this theory and all the two-bit atheists who take up scientism are exactly right.

But you need not reply unless you want to. These issues are beyond our ability to make any difference in this kind of venue anyway.

Edited July 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Bikeemikey]

I am aware of Moroni's promise re: the BoM . Can someone point me to a similar promise re: the D&C ?

Is there a specific unique theological process associated with the Moroni promise? Or is Moroni simply inviting us to to what most scriptures ask religious participants to do?

The New Testament, BOM and D&C are all filled with the "ask and get an answer" promise.

[Questing Beast]

I don't really want to get into it, this is a technical problem in philosophy which I suppose one must even be trained to see.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, unfortunately many many philosophers disagree with you.

Quote

The objection that may well have been the most effective in causing discontent with the correspondence theory is based on an epistemological concern. In a nutshell, the objection is that a correspondence theory of truth must inevitably lead into skepticism about the external world because the required correspondence between our thoughts and reality is not ascertainable. Ever since Berkeley's attack on the representational theory of the mind, objections of this sort have enjoyed considerable popularity. It is typically pointed out that we cannot step outside our own minds to compare our thoughts with mind-independent reality. Yet—so the objection continues—on the correspondence theory of truth, this is precisely what we would have to do to gain knowledge. We would have to access reality as it is in itself, independently of our cognition of it, and determine whether our thoughts correspond to it. Since this is impossible, since all our access to the world is mediated by our cognition, the correspondence theory makes knowledge impossible (cf. Kant 1800, intro vii). Assuming that the resulting skepticism is unacceptable, the correspondence theory has to be rejected, and some other account of truth, an epistemic (anti-realist) account of some sort, has to be put in its place (Cf., e.g., Blanshard 1941.)

http://plato.stanfor...rrespondence/#9

I honestly didn't make this up myself, though I wish I did. I would be the most important philosopher ever if this was all my own idea. After all, it goes back hundreds of years.

But I am firm in my claim that correspondence theory is the enemy of those who think that spiritual experience is in any sense "real".

Precisely what do revelations "correspond to then, if they are "real" and how can they be said to be "true"? The simple reality is that they cannot be said to be "true" on this theory and all the two-bit atheists who take up scientism are exactly right.

But you need not reply unless you want to. These issues are beyond our ability to make any difference in this kind of venue anyway.

I can see a fallacy in that objection to "correspondence theory", and it hangs on the concept of shared reality. What is going on in the world of humans is both seen, empirical, and unseen, the vast majority of "reality" to each person. We learn at an early age to distinguish that shared reality or else we don't survive the learning experience for very long, e.g. the kid, "Calvin", who puts on the towel cape and leaps off his house roof as "Stupendous Man": the shared reality, the empirical one, tells him "No, you can't do that no matter how much you believe you can, you'll kill yourself if you persist." Those who continually lack the capacity to distinguish the two realities, empirical/shared, and egocentric/metaphysical (oh, that word again, do you have a better?), will get killed off by the empirical/shared reality, because it governs all in the world of humans. The immortal world of humans, that's a different matter altogether, and obviously not capable of study, since each egocentric soul perceives it uniquely, especially from here as temporary mortals. I believe that "being there" (here) is perceived from the immortal perspective, as a very limited venue where we divest ourselves of our immortal abilities in order to experience opposition.

Now that betrays my lack of formal education, no doubt. But can you see the worm in the apple? There is no "stepping out of our minds", not here, nor as immortals, without annihilation. If you wanted to try it, it would be the only chance you got, and you'd never be able to share a single thing about the experience with anyone before you were gone forever (back into the "whole mind of God"). The shared/empirical world is the real one, there is no other to see outside the mind. The unshared/metaphysical reality is one on one with "God" alone and always will be....

Edited July 16, 2013 by Questing Beast