How Do You Use Your Testimony From God?

[mfbukowski]

One can't. That's the point. That's why I am questioning the idea that one can infallibly know something through revelation when that experience (even if it originates with God) is subject to fallible human interpretation.

EVERYTHING is subject to fallible human interpretation- that is precisely the point.

There are NO facts, only interpretations- and that goes for every field of knowledge,not just revelation- unless you can show how we can get outside of cognitive experience to compare it to what is "real" and that cannot be done.

Everything we can know is apprehended in a human brain- science, religion, poetry and music- that is inescapable unless you are a Martian, and then you have the same problem with a Martian brain.

Edited July 27, 2013 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

And how does one escape culturally informed cognitive processes?

REMOVE THE COGNITIVE PROCESSOR!!!

I have been waiting forever to use that line.

[Calm]

REMOVE THE COGNITIVE PROCESSOR!!!

I have been waiting forever to use that line.

Would you be kind enough to explain why?

[The Nehor]

Would you be kind enough to explain why?

Because removing a brain is funny.

[Calm]

Yes, yes it is.

[mfbukowski]

REMOVE THE COGNITIVE PROCESSOR!!!

I have been waiting forever to use that line.

[mfbukowski]

When my son was about 5 or so he figured out how something worked (I can't remember what) and I asked him "How did you know that?"

He answered "My brain told me!"

Ah yes, a chip off the old block!

[theplains]

Pray tell, how does one know what true doctrine is without testimony?

Difficult question to answer considering that some have a testimony that Jesus is

God, others have a testimony that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and others have

a testimony that Jesus is only a prophet.

The testimonies of these people do not have the same inspirational source, so they

form the basis of 3 different doctrines. Add to this the testimony of those who

believe Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents, and you have a fourth.

Regards,

Jim

[mfbukowski]

You first posted this:

Many receive a witness of the Holy Spirit that he was not a prophet. That is why they do not

convert into the LDS Church. Feelings can deceive a person since so many claim to be led

by what they feel. True doctrine is a better yardstick to ensure you are on the right path..

Regards,

Jim

Which seemingly is a criticism of testimony, saying, in essence, that "true doctrine" is better than testimony.

I then asked you how do we KNOW what true doctrine is, if we don't HAVE a testimony. This was your answer:

Difficult question to answer considering that some have a testimony that Jesus is

God, others have a testimony that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and others have

a testimony that Jesus is only a prophet.

The testimonies of these people do not have the same inspirational source, so they

form the basis of 3 different doctrines. Add to this the testimony of those who

believe Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents, and you have a fourth.

Regards,

Jim

You still have not answered the question of how one knows what "true doctrine" would be. If you are going to criticize testimony, surely you have an answer which you think gives better results than testimony.

Unless perhaps you are an atheist- but I don't think an atheist would affirm "true doctrine" as an answer without being able to defend what that was.

I am confused.

[Kenngo1969]

Feelings may deceive, but fruits cannot (see Matthew 7:16-20).

P.S.: What do you make of the "fruits of the spirit" scripture, Jim (Galatians 5:22-23)?

Insert [WHISTLING] icon here. Insert [TWIDDLING THUMBS] icon here. Insert [CHECKING WATCH] icon here.

[Calm]

[theplains]

Which seemingly is a criticism of testimony, saying, in essence, that "true doctrine" is better than testimony.

I believe that true doctrine is recorded in the scriptures. I take it on faith. If someone says

that he has a testimony that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and the scriptures say

otherwise, then "true doctrine" is better than testimony. I would surmise that many members

of our respective churches have testimonies/faith in things that are false.

You still have not answered the question of how one knows what "true doctrine" would

be. If you are going to criticize testimony, surely you have an answer which you think gives

better results than testimony.

I accept the teachings in scripture as true doctrine. Without scriptural support, one person's

teaching may either be true speculation or false speculation. I understand that one's faith (or

testimony) can also be based on feelings (what they believe are promptings of the Holy Spirit).

Thanks,

Jim

[mfbukowski]

I believe that true doctrine is recorded in the scriptures. I take it on faith. If someone says

that he has a testimony that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and the scriptures say

otherwise, then "true doctrine" is better than testimony. I would surmise that many members

of our respective churches have testimonies/faith in things that are false.

I accept the teachings in scripture as true doctrine. Without scriptural support, one person's

teaching may either be true speculation or false speculation. I understand that one's faith (or

testimony) can also be based on feelings (what they believe are promptings of the Holy Spirit).

Thanks,

Jim

So who's interpretation of the scriptures do you follow?

[inquiringmind]

I read through some of the stuff related to Hans Mattsson. When I saw the "issues" that caused him heartburn, I wondered what someone like that does with the witnesses they have received from God.

I fully understand why someone might have their faith shaken if they had not been blessed with at least one experience in their life where the Lord told them in unmistakable terms that: 1. The Book of Mormon is true; or, 2. Joseph Smith was a true prophet. But I would like to assume that someone who had risen in the Church to a position of an Area Authority had received at least one such witness in their life. (Perhaps the assumption is unwarranted.)

I once wrote on an 'anti' discussion board the following concept, with reference to those who have received God's witness that Joseph Smith was a true prophet: Because of the witness of the Holy Spirit, we are convinced of Joseph Smith's prophethood, not because of anything he did, but in spite of anything he might have done. (Predictably, it was met with great derision.)

Assuming Bro. Mattsson (and others similarly situated) had received such a witness, what do they do with that witness when confronted with information not previously known?

Receiving a witness from God is nice, but useless if we don't trust God. I have learned stuff about the Prophet that made me cringe a bit. But I have used the witness God gave me to put the burden on Him. So far, so good. Nothing has been revealed about Joseph Smith where I have been moved to chastise God for lying to me.

How did God tell you, "in unmistakable terms," that Joseph was a prophet?

Did you actually have a physical sensation of warmth or burning in your chest?

Did you actually hear an audible voice?

Did you have a vision of some kind (like the Apostle Paul had, and like some Catholic Saints are supposed to have had)?

Edited August 1, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Kenngo1969]

Thank you, Cal!

[Ahab]

EVERYTHING is subject to fallible human interpretation- that is precisely the point.

Are you including our Father's understanding of truth when you say that? Is he someone you consider to be human, with a fallible human interpretation of what the truth is?

There are NO facts, only interpretations- and that goes for every field of knowledge,not just revelation- unless you can show how we can get outside of cognitive experience to compare it to what is "real" and that cannot be done.

It is shown by knowing there are things that we call facts, and what at least some of those facts are, or have been, or will be. You may not be having a cognitive experience right now to help you understand that fact, but there are other people who know some facts that you apparently don't know, yet, even if your cognitive experience is leading you to believe otherwise.

Everything we can know is apprehended in a human brain- science, religion, poetry and music- that is inescapable unless you are a Martian, and then you have the same problem with a Martian brain.

I don't know where you are getting that idea, unless by "human brain" you're including what our "cognitive processor" will be when we shed this mortal coil, even if taking it up again in our resurrected state. I suppose I could think in those terms but instead of saying God has a "human brain" I prefer to refer to it as the mind or Spirit of God.

[mfbukowski]

It is shown by knowing there are things that we call facts, and what at least some of those facts are, or have been, or will be. You may not be having a cognitive experience right now to help you understand that fact, but there are other people who know some facts that you apparently don't know, yet, even if your cognitive experience is leading you to believe otherwise.

There are no "facts" that no one knows or ever has known. Facts are linguistic statements and without a person to utter them, they don't exist.

I don't know where you are getting that idea, unless by "human brain" you're including what our "cognitive processor" will be when we shed this mortal coil, even if taking it up again in our resurrected state. I suppose I could think in those terms but instead of saying God has a "human brain" I prefer to refer to it as the mind or Spirit of God.

Whatever floats your boat.

If I make it supernatural as you have, I lose the atheists.

If I make it naturalistic I lose the theists.

Regardless, the point is the same. We cannot know anything which has never been experienced by a human.

Should I not respond to you in the future it is because I do not have the time to do so. Sorry for being harsh earlier.

[Ahab]

There are no "facts" that no one knows or ever has known. Facts are linguistic statements and without a person to utter them, they don't exist.

1) Someone has always existed, and even if he/they had never "uttered" a fact he/they would still know things and those things he/they knew would be what we think of as "facts" even if he/they called them by some other name.

2) A linguistic statement refers to something, and we use the lingistic statement called "fact" to refer to something that is true, hence, facts do exist as both linguistic statements and whatever the linguistic statement refers to.

3) My first 2 points are facts that are true and those facts have always existed even before I wrote them down here in this thread.

Whatever floats your boat.

If I make it supernatural as you have, I lose the atheists.

If I make it naturalistic I lose the theists.

You're not going to make God's cogniitve processor either natural or supernatural by what you choose to call it. The question to you was whether you consider it to be fallible or infallible.

Regardless, the point is the same. We cannot know anything which has never been experienced by a human.

No problem, since there have always been humans and some have experienced every kind of thing there is to experience.

[Senator]

Having the kind of witness I am talking about is a gift. .

How can we then fault the giftless for not exhibiting the same response as the gifted?