Does The Supernatural Exist?

[pogi]

If we are we need to fix that by accepting correction, should we not?

 

You should know that your delivery stands in need of correction then.

 

Dialogue is great, but correction through demeaning and repugnant comments about other peoples most sacred beliefs usually repels rather than attracts people to the truth.  It places them on the defensive rather than leaving them open and impressionable.  Sensitivity should always take the place of an obstinate blustering bravado of your rightness.

 

The religious beliefs of others are as real to them as the sun.  They have a deep seeded relationship with these beliefs that bring comfort and understanding in a world of confusion.  They offer constancy in a sea of change.  The relationship a deeply religious person has with his beliefs can be as profound as the relationship that a child has with his mother.  When you attack their beliefs by calling them nonsense, etc. it is like you are attacking their mother.  Even if the basis of what you say is right, you are way off point. 

 

I have worked with a lot of dementia patients who are as delusional as they come.  I have found that if you "correct" their delusional beliefs by saying they are wrong, they become defensive and even aggressive.  But, with some care and sensitivity without attacking their beliefs, you can successfully orient a patient to person, time and place.  I sometimes wonder if we are really that different.  This is a lesson in how we should approach other's beliefs, not an implication that 3DOP is delusional 

[mfbukowski]

Mark,

 

I have tried on many occasions to explain that the human speech used to express the meaning of the Nicene Creed has "to be understood in the context in which it is intended." I seem to recall opposition from you to my attempts to explain the meaning of the word consubstantial, which has arisen as a stumbling block, understandably, for those not familiar with the way the words were being used. A Mormon hears the word substance, and they think of that table with all of the elements listed. I get that. But they can't correctly use that understanding of the word substance to arrive at what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

I have thought I was getting somewhere on a few occasions when I have point out that at Chalcedon, the Council where the next heresy attacked whether Jesus was fully man, used the same word, consubstantial, to describe His connection to us as human. I was thinking than an image was forming where we could perceive that this word consubstantial was used to insist that as in biological reproduction, animals and plants have offspring "after their kind", so it is with God. When Jesus reveals Himself as the Son of God, our differing views about God will take us Catholics and Mormons in different directions. But the boogie man is not consubstantiality. You guys believe in consubstantiality, properly understood, as much as we do! It is one misunderstanding that ought to go away.

 

But it is truly easier to submarine the whole effort by talking about meaninglessness of words and how it doesn't say anything to talk about a human nature or divine nature or any nature. We're all individuals and mouse nature doesn't tell me anything. Okay. I have to back up that far to be able to talk about consubstantiality. We were so close and then we have to prove that mice, flowers, and oatmeal are identifiable according to a common nature. 

 

With all due respect, I fear you are failing to remember how you have in the past denied that there is any context in which the formulae of the early Councils makes sense. If I have wronged you here, please say so and accept my humble apologies which will be forthcoming after I have looked in the archives and confirmed that my recollection is false. My dismay for being wrong about you will be more than offset by my joy in hearing that you think the Nicene Creed is understandable (even if it is wrong) if one will undertake the trouble to learn the vocabulary according to context.    

 

Rory

Rory

I think we are talking past each other.  Sorry.  No capeesh.    I think I do not understand your post any more than you understand mine. 

 

Just know that I respect you tremendously and feel terrible if I have offended you. These are philosophical points, and are not about one's relationship to God.  I cannot retract my philosophical points without being untrue to myself, but just know that they have absolutely nothing to do with you personally and any particular Catholic's relationship to God.

 

When I said "absolutely" I was not making some kind of statement about absolute statements- I was merely agreeing with Robert's point.

 

I don't know how that could be misunderstood into leading one to think that I was making some kind of statement about the nature of truth, any more than saying that a "perfect" time for a meeting would be 5 pm on Thursday. 

 

But that is where our misunderstanding lies, I am afraid.

 

I will not stop posting because someone misunderstands me and feels offended thinking I said things I did not mean in the context in which they were taken.  In fact, if anything, I would take such misunderstanding as evidence that indeed I am right and that language is so ambiguous that sometimes communication is impossible when two people are so completely different in their basic assumptions about life.

 

Just know please that I do not want to offend you or any Catholic or anyone else for that matter.  I am very sorry if what I say offends you, but please do know that you are misunderstanding me, and I do not know the right words to allow us to communicate.

 

I have affirmed the Apostles creed, but never the Nicene creed.  I don't want to get into consubstantiality, because that goes nowhere

Edited March 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

You should know that your delivery stands in need of correction then.

 

Dialogue is great, but correction through demeaning and repugnant comments about other peoples most sacred beliefs usually repels rather than attracts people to the truth.  It places them on the defensive rather than leaving them open and impressionable.  Sensitivity should always take the place of an obstinate blustering bravado of your rightness.

 

The religious beliefs of others are as real to them as the sun.  They have a deep seeded relationship with these beliefs that bring comfort and understanding in a world of confusion.  They offer constancy in a sea of change.  The relationship a deeply religious person has with his beliefs can be as profound as the relationship that a child has with his mother.  When you attack their beliefs by calling them nonsense, etc. it is like you are attacking their mother.  Even if the basis of what you say is right, you are way off point. 

 

I have worked with a lot of dementia patients who are as delusional as they come.  I have found that if you "correct" their delusional beliefs by saying they are wrong, they become defensive and even aggressive.  But, with some care and sensitivity without attacking their beliefs, you can successfully orient a patient to person, time and place.  I sometimes wonder if we are really that different.  This is a lesson in how we should approach other's beliefs, not an implication that 3DOP is delusional 

 

Yeah Ahab...c'mon treat me like I have dementia and maybe we can get somewhere.

 

Sincere thanks pogi. Very well said. I especially liked that part about mother. We refer to the Church as Holy Mother Church sometimes. Who can listen dispassionately while somebody unfamiliar with her berates one's mother? That doesn't mean we get to act like babies everytime an unbeliever offends our devotion. We need to remember that they don't know our mother and especially when our mother reminds us that she loves them too and that we have sometimes disappointed her. I don't want that we should fail to express our true beliefs. But you are correct that we can easily take offense on behalf of what is beloved. Should we not? I have sometimes felt like I would be an ungrateful son to not take offense. Does that make sense pogi? There is tension between wanting to defend the beloved and being patient toward the other.

[mfbukowski]

Yeah Ahab...c'mon treat me like I have dementia and maybe we can get somewhere.

 

Don't worry- that's just Ahab.  Join the club.

[mfbukowski]

3DOP:

 

The Saints accept that being, essence, nature exist. Though we do put a different religious meaning to them than did Aristotle.

Yep.  Every one of them is an English word in the dictionary- I will not debate that they exist.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

To the OP, it is just that God knows how to use "natural law" in a way we do not know how to...so that my be considered "supernatural".

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................   

As the "Form of Goodness" of course (?) he cannot change, because he must be "perfect" and in Greek the word "perfect" MEANS "complete".  So if something is not complete, then it must be changing.  Therefore the Form of Goodness must be unchanging.  So God is then unchanging.

 

It's just layer upon layer of linguistic abstraction created out of language and little nuances of language like the linguistic fact that in Greek, "perfect" MEANS "complete" so to be perfect is to be unchanging.  Maybe in Greek, but conceptually we use the word- and think therefore- in English "perfect" quite differently-

............................................................   

So does God have to be unchanging to be "perfect"-  no, that is an abstract linguistic requirement of a language- ancient Greek- which is no longer still in use.  So now we still debate about omnipotence and omnipresence and the "perfect Nature of God" all because we have confused ourselves with these abstracted "doctrines" which have no meaning in themselves, outside of action.

 

.......................................................   

The same in Hebrew:  "perfect, complete."

[pogi]

Yeah Ahab...c'mon treat me like I have dementia and maybe we can get somewhere.

 

Sincere thanks pogi. Very well said. I especially liked that part about mother. We refer to the Church as Holy Mother Church sometimes. Who can listen dispassionately while somebody unfamiliar with her berates one's mother? That doesn't mean we get to act like babies everytime an unbeliever offends our devotion. We need to remember that they don't know our mother and especially when our mother reminds us that she loves them too and that we have sometimes disappointed her. I don't want that we should fail to express our true beliefs. But you are correct that we can easily take offense on behalf of what is beloved. Should we not? I have sometimes felt like I would be an ungrateful son to not take offense. Does that make sense pogi? There is tension between wanting to defend the beloved and being patient toward the other.

 

Ya, I questioned putting the dementia example in there.  The point was that we should treat other people's beliefs not as if they are beliefs, but as if they are reality to the other person, even if they seem off-base to us.   

 

Yes, what you say does make sense.  I know the tension quite well and I have to say that you walk the line well.  

Edited March 2, 2014 by pogi

[Tacenda]

Ya, I questioned putting the dementia example in there. The point was that we should treat other people's beliefs not as if they are beliefs, but as if they are reality to the other person, even if they seem off-base to us.

Yes, what you say does make sense. I know the tension quite well and I have to say that you walk the line well.

Especially when our belief, or LDS belief is less than 2% of the world population. Sounds like more believe in Catholicism vs. Mormonism to me. Now who has dementia?

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................  

. All are non-existent concepts according to LDS philosophy. If nature is non-existent, where is anything above non-existence? Supernature? Do you mean supernothing? 

.............................................   

Ordinarily our paths don't cross I think. This is probably because I tend to wait until something comes up about my own beliefs. At times I can be quiet for a few weeks, but I am always looking around. I usually don't have to wait very long. Anyway, I will have to disagree with you here. Neither Robert nor mfbukowski are among those few who appear to be actually unconcerned about giving offense. There are posters here who couldn't care less, and cannot offend me, because they are so ignorant. In this case, I am convinced Robert does believe, in a precise philosophical sense, that we are atheists.

I am at a loss, Rory.  No matter what I say now, I am condemned to be the ultimate bad guy, painting others as unwitting atheists, and blissfully unconcerned about being offensive to you and others who might come from a mainstream Christian background (even though a century ago here in America, Roman Catholics were condemned in the same breath as those horrible Mormons).  I am deeply concerned about all this, and should probably reflect very carefully on whether I am even capable of carrying on a meaningful conversation here.  Thanks for the useful insights.    

 

bukowski pronounced his ratification of Robert's moment of candor with a remark that is truly not consistent with his professed philosophy, "Absolutely!"

 

This does not mean that they disapprove of the first universities of Europe, Catholic architecture, the paintings of Fra Angelico, Sacred Polyphony, or Dante's poetry. They know that the fruit of this philosophical "atheism" has certainly brought forth beauty, possibly goodness, and maybe even a kernel of truth. But LDS beliefs do not permit respect for the philosophy that informed the faith of an era when the Catholic Church inspired the culture and a civilization emerged where it prospered. But they do respect what emerged from the nonsense.

 

LDS can talk about orthopraxis all they want but they are as dogmatic as a traditional Catholic. They will not budge on the dogma of the materiality of all things. I don't mind that they are dogmatic. I mind that they say they are not. The perennial philosophy of St. Thomas insists that an idea has existence. LDS progressive philosophy cannot permit this. Ideas, concepts, and possibilities all lack matter. There is nothing immaterial according to the philosophy of the sons of Joseph Smith. And if an idea has existence, this raises the question of whether matter is necessary for any thing to exist. The materialist philosophy that can only allow that the thought that you ponder exists if it is made out of matter cannot permit the metaphysics of the librarian referenced above. This materialism permeates LDS thought and is dogmaticallly incompatible with the world of immaterial reality that planted universities on the earth and raised Gothic Cathedrals to the sky.

Extrapolating from my and Mark's turgid prose and not always successful efforts at philosophical sophistication might not be a terribly good idea, Rory.  Mark is probably sui generis in his philosophical views within the Mormon community (though he does accurately reflect the world of analytical philosophy outside of Mormonism), and I can't think of any LDS thinkers out there who might share my odd assertions about what LDS theology really is.  So, while I think that my logical formulation of the LDS faith is accurate, 99% of Mormons are blissfully unaware of the nature of the issues which we are discussing here, and live their lives without any concern for such matters.

What they actually do is admire those great cathedrals, and work hard to create temples very much along the same lines (outwardly), and with the same devotion.  In Sunday School they use color reproductions of the great religious art of Europe and the Renaissance.  When in Europe, they are awed by the depth of feeling and reverence caused by a visit to St. Petere's Basilica or to Hagia Sophia, just as they are moved by the sincere actions and pleas of a modern Pope.  If you ask them, they are likely to say that St. Francis and Mother Teresa were inspired by God, as were many other holy people over the centuries.  Will they maintain (as do the Roman Catholics) that theirs is the only true Church of Christ.  Of course.  Does that mean that they feel  that Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims worship a non-existent God?  Of course not.  Some might take issue with the way that God is described by the different dogmas, but that does not change the fact that they see all men as brothers and children of God, and believe that we all pray to the same God.  Just as a practical matter, your description of the LDS faithful could not be more wrong, and I admit my part in leading you into that misperception.

 

 

Allow me a digression, faithful Mormons wonder why doubting Mormons continue to be so keenly interested in LDS life and culture? Perhaps it is because the foundational precepts which have informed Mormonism almost always remain most firmly. After the subject loses faith because of polygamy, geography, DNA, or no more apostolic style miracles, he or she is fixed and rooted in the materialism which is incompatible with an immaterial God that transcends creation. How does this happen? Why do Mormons who leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints almost inevitably turn to atheism instead of considering one of the other cults (I use the word in its classical sense, non-pejorative) of Christianity?

 

Any individual case has a variety of reasons, but I would propose for your consideration that a fundamental reason is that the LDS faith has succeeded in persuading its faithful that metaphysics is a deservedly dying strain of thought in the unexamined, but presumably inevitable march of the human intellect towards a better understanding of philosophical realities. When this modern philosophy of the day does not overcome whatever intellectual shortcomings have troubled the believer in the religious propositions of Mormonism, materialist philosophy is still fundamental and the idea of immaterial reality remains as dogmatically excluded as it was when they were active and believing missionaries, priests, or bishops. Mormonism is still seen as the only option that can save religion from today's tide toward atheism. As such, the reluctant atheist, formerly LDS, still feels "the tie that binds". Heck jk, you still want to defend Mormonism to guys like me!

Orson Pratt, me, Mark, and a handful of others may sometimes make the case for materialism, but you won't find many Mormons who have the foggiest idea what that might mean -- not to mention metaphysics.  Mormons just don't concern themselves with such mattters, and see Mormonism as a way of life (something like the ethnic self-identification one finds among Jews, believing or not).

I can see now that our friendly repartee here (which I have very much enjoyed) has led you to a very unrealistic view of Mormonism.  One of the dangers of exploring the mysteries, I suppose, and I apologize.

 

In a later post, I will try to develop the reason why it is so easy and advantageous for the LDS apologist to say that everything is blather. Even while I was composing this, Mark commented, "So all statements in language are inherently ambiguous, and therefore potentially contradictory."  Right. oh wait. Wrong? Ummmm, yes, absolutely. Oh wait, absolutely not.

 

What can be said to that? Nothing. The conversation would be ended there except that the LDS adherents of that belief inconsistently apply it. They keep talking:

 

I think I have to disagree with you jk about how widespread these opinions are. As I recall, the missionaries who I once had to the house almost immediately started talking about the Council of Nicea and "hellenism". That may not be the norm. Maybe the well-meaning Mormon who knew me knew that these particular missionaries were available who might be able to speak specifically to me on a subject I may have mentioned. I tend to think the belief Robert expressed is mainstream LDS, at least for those who give it thought. Strip away all the veneer and thoughtful Mormons believe what Bikeymikey said above. They worship a super smart guy with a body. Us? Well, our God, great as He would be if He could exist, is impossible. How do they know? Because the challenging language of a theology that is dogmatically opposed to their own is easily caricatured as hopelessly verbose and unmeaning. Mormons understandably are delighted with such an explanation, and if only a few of them express it, they rest easy about whether they need to worry about offending anybody more imposing than a super smart guy with a body. They can congratulate themselves on having left behind the angels on pinheads. (By the way, that has never been a subject of doubt with those of us who hold that angels are immaterial. How many ideas can one brain entertain? Same question. Ideas are immaterial and don't take up space). I wonder, does God work out? You know, lift weights or jog?  

 

Thank you for your concern. 

.....................................

Rory

You are a formidable character when riled, Rory, and I am very impressed with this particular post, even if it takes the super smart aleck comments of some of us rightly to task on the assumption that we are representative of the Mormons and Mormonism.  We are not.  We are just a bunch of oddballs who spend too much time yapping like dogs, as though we have something important to say.

One good thing, though:  Despite all the hullaballoo (speaking just for myself), if we listen, we can learn something.  Well, maybe . . ..   

[CV75]

One good thing, though:  Despite all the hullaballoo (speaking just for myself), if we listen, we can learn something.  Well, maybe . . ..   

 

I ask this with an attitude of listening to learn--would you share what you have learned?

[thesometimesaint]

Yep.  Every one of them is an English word in the dictionary- I will not debate that they exist.

 

It is the religious implications attached to them that make for interesting discussions.

[mfbukowski]

Rory- though not addressed to me, I find Robert says some things better than I could, so please regard this as my reply also- I will insert some comments.

I am at a loss, Rory.  No matter what I say now, I am condemned to be the ultimate bad guy, painting others as unwitting atheists, and blissfully unconcerned about being offensive to you and others who might come from a mainstream Christian background (even though a century ago here in America, Roman Catholics were condemned in the same breath as those horrible Mormons).  I am deeply concerned about all this, and should probably reflect very carefully on whether I am even capable of carrying on a meaningful conversation here.  Thanks for the useful insights.    

If you feel that way, Robert, I feel doubly that way. I think my period of useful communication here and any influence I may have had is coming to a close. 

Extrapolating from my and Mark's turgid prose and not always successful efforts at philosophical sophistication might not be a terribly good idea, Rory.  Mark is probably sui generis in his philosophical views within the Mormon community (though he does accurately reflect the world of analytical philosophy outside of Mormonism), and I can't think of any LDS thinkers out there who might share my odd assertions about what LDS theology really is.  So, while I think that my logical formulation of the LDS faith is accurate, 99% of Mormons are blissfully unaware of the nature of the issues which we are discussing here, and live their lives without any concern for such matters.

Agreed. I am the oddest of oddballs here I think, and Robert seems to have deciphered what I am trying to say, even though sometimes we disagree. (I certainly don't want to pin my weirdness on him!) That he can understand my opaque prose just certifies his ability as a decipherer of obscure texts.

Orson Pratt, me, Mark, and a handful of others may sometimes make the case for materialism, but you won't find many Mormons who have the foggiest idea what that might mean -- not to mention metaphysics.  Mormons just don't concern themselves with such mattters, and see Mormonism as a way of life (something like the ethnic self-identification one finds among Jews, believing or not).

I can see now that our friendly repartee here (which I have very much enjoyed) has led you to a very unrealistic view of Mormonism.  One of the dangers of exploring the mysteries, I suppose, and I apologize.

 

Rory

You are a formidable character when riled, Rory, and I am very impressed with this particular post, even if it takes the super smart aleck comments of some of us rightly to task on the assumption that we are representative of the Mormons and Mormonism.  We are not.  We are just a bunch of oddballs who spend too much time yapping like dogs, as though we have something important to say.

One good thing, though:  Despite all the hullaballoo (speaking just for myself), if we listen, we can learn something.  Well, maybe . . ..   

Agreed.

What I have learned is to avoid discussing philosophy and instead stick to the gospel. Ostler is brilliant at using gospel language to teach philosophy and I need to learn from him.

[mfbukowski]

It is the religious implications attached to them that make for interesting discussions.

Interesting yes, as perhaps a video game is interesting. Do such discussions bring you closer to the Lord? For me, I think not. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

[thesometimesaint]

Interesting yes, as perhaps a video game is interesting. Do such discussions bring you closer to the Lord? For me, I think not. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

 

I think it is possible to do both, but not necessarily at the same time.

[CV75]

What I have learned is to avoid discussing philosophy and instead stick to the gospel. Ostler is brilliant at using gospel language to teach philosophy and I need to learn from him.

I think that however you convey your thoughts about the gospel, the message is still about the gospel--I think there is great value in people sharing what the gospel means to them in terms that can be mutually understood (I thought that's what you've been saying all along!!!) and to be mutually understood sometimes takes quite a bit of effort.

[mfbukowski]

I think that however you convey your thoughts about the gospel, the message is still about the gospel--I think there is great value in people sharing what the gospel means to them in terms that can be mutually understood (I thought that's what you've been saying all along!!!) and to be mutually understood sometimes takes quite a bit of effort.

Robert drew my attention to this essay, and I think it captures the point I am now making, perfectly, even though my comment disagrees with its author, Brother Midgley. At a moment like the loss of a wife, philosophy is largely useless, but gospel stories can bring comfort and hope.

I see that quite clearly now.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-plea-for-narrative-theology-living-in-and-by-stories/

Edited March 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

I think my use of a double negative might be responsible for a misunderstanding. I wrote: "Neither Robert nor mfbukowski are among those few who would appear to be actually unconcerned about giving offense."

 

Translation: Like most here, Robert and mfbukowski are concerned about giving offense.

 

Correctly understood, the statement could in no wise contribute to a sentiment that either party is "the ultimate bad guy". For the record, while I obviously disagree with them about important matters, I esteem their good opinions, and I am sorry if they should think that they do not have mine.    

 

Rory

[CV75]

Robert drew my attention to this essay, and I think it captures the point I am now making, perfectly, even though my comment disagrees with its author, Brother Midgley. At a moment like the loss of a wife, philosophy is largely useless, but gospel stories can bring comfort and hope.

I see that quite clearly now.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-plea-for-narrative-theology-living-in-and-by-stories/

Funny—the first thing I did after reading the abstract was to do a word search for “testimony” since I consider that to be my grounding in the Gospel, not the stories, as edifying as they are. On the other hand, the stories are but another person’s testimony for which we seek confirmation (e.g. the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon). But as Moroni exhorts, we must remember that these stories only point to the Lord’s mercy, gifts and way of life (10:18-27), which is the “real deal” (“real” as in Alma 32).

 

At any rate, lo and behold, I came across your comment, the only reference to “testimony”!!! He does mention our duty to testify (which I take to be in spirit, gifts and way of life). I see this as different from apologetics or philosophy, though I see how inspired apologetics and philosophy can be confirmed by the Holy Ghost and how sharing His witness can be a form of testimony.

 

I think the honest seeker (and finder) of truth doesn’t want such-and-such to be true, but rather has an open mind as to its truthfulness, because wanting something tends yields a self-fulfilling testimony.  In the same way, I also think the seeker of truth doesn’t just accept such-and-such to be true but experiences the Lord’s mercy, gifts and way of life. The stories help us seek these experiences by inspiring our faith in the principles they demonstrate.

 

I certainly hope your current view isn’t the result of a personal tragedy.

 

Back to your comment on testimony: We must have an agreed-upon [philosophical and rational] answer for what it means for a testimony to be “true”… Do you see Alma 32 as that answer, since it guides behavior and interpretation of experience, or as such is a philosophy?

[mfbukowski]

Funny—the first thing I did after reading the abstract was to do a word search for “testimony” since I consider that to be my grounding in the Gospel, not the stories, as edifying as they are. On the other hand, the stories are but another person’s testimony for which we seek confirmation (e.g. the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon). But as Moroni exhorts, we must remember that these stories only point to the Lord’s mercy, gifts and way of life (10:18-27), which is the “real deal” (“real” as in Alma 32).

 

At any rate, lo and behold, I came across your comment, the only reference to “testimony”!!! He does mention our duty to testify (which I take to be in spirit, gifts and way of life). I see this as different from apologetics or philosophy, though I see how inspired apologetics and philosophy can be confirmed by the Holy Ghost and how sharing His witness can be a form of testimony.

 

I think the honest seeker (and finder) of truth doesn’t want such-and-such to be true, but rather has an open mind as to its truthfulness, because wanting something tends yields a self-fulfilling testimony.  In the same way, I also think the seeker of truth doesn’t just accept such-and-such to be true but experiences the Lord’s mercy, gifts and way of life. The stories help us seek these experiences by inspiring our faith in the principles they demonstrate.

 

I certainly hope your current view isn’t the result of a personal tragedy.

 

Back to your comment on testimony: We must have an agreed-upon [philosophical and rational] answer for what it means for a testimony to be “true”… Do you see Alma 32 as that answer, since it guides behavior and interpretation of experience, or as such is a philosophy?

The short answer is yes, between Moroni 10:4-5 and Alma 32- that is the key and basis for all of it directly experiencing the gospel in our lives

 

But those are experiences and then we have the problem of putting those experiences into words to communicate to others.  The more a statement is structured to be "logical", automatically the less it is structured to be emotional.  A good statement of a testimony always includes a good story I think- not a long narrative, but a description of the feeling and sensation of the testimony.

 

That ain't philosophy!  You gotta get some right brain going there or a testimony will never communicate.

Edited March 3, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Ya, I questioned putting the dementia example in there. The point was that we should treat other people's beliefs not as if they are beliefs, but as if they are reality to the other person, even if they seem off-base to us.

Yes, what you say does make sense. I know the tension quite well and I have to say that you walk the line well.

I think we've made some progress by identifying some beliefs as a ...mistake, so let's just move on to how we can correct those mistakes, shall we. And let's also avoid any diversions such as trying to correct my personality, because even if you could fix me so that I never made any mistakes when communicating with someone else to correct a...mistake they have mistaken for truth, the corrections I offered to correct a...mistake in someone elses beliefs would still need to be accepted by them.

[CV75]

The short answer is yes, between Moroni 10:4-5 and Alma 32- that is the key and basis for all of it directly experiencing the gospel in our lives

 

But those are experiences and then we have the problem of putting those experiences into words to communicate to others.  The more a statement is structured to be "logical", automatically the less it is structured to be emotional.  A good statement of a testimony always includes a good story I think- not a long narrative, but a description of the feeling and sensation of the testimony.

 

That ain't philosophy!  You gotta get some right brain going there or a testimony will never communicate.

 

Just as “it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory,” I think it “mattereth not” which side of the brain, form of expression or tool we use as long as we testify with an eye single to God’s glory, “…for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.” (2 Nephi 33: 1) Because people are oriented all over the place, but the Spirit is the common Communicator of spiritual things, I think the Lord’s grace attends our best efforts to testify and receive of Him.

 

As mortal beings, I think we have nothing but arms of flesh (words, stories, apologetics, philosophy) to communicate the things of our spirit to each other, but at the same time they only work when/if the Spirit obliges. Ether 12 shows us that some are weak in writing, some are weak in speaking, but the Lord’s grace is sufficient. In the same way, the approaches of left-brained people may be weak to the right-brained and vice-versa; the various approaches we use can be either strengths or weaknesses. I believe the Lord lets us do the best we can with what we’ve got and His Spirit and grace get the job done.

[mfbukowski]

Just as “it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory,” I think it “mattereth not” which side of the brain, form of expression or tool we use as long as we testify with an eye single to God’s glory, “…for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.” (2 Nephi 33: 1) Because people are oriented all over the place, but the Spirit is the common Communicator of spiritual things, I think the Lord’s grace attends our best efforts to testify and receive of Him.

 

As mortal beings, I think we have nothing but arms of flesh (words, stories, apologetics, philosophy) to communicate the things of our spirit to each other, but at the same time they only work when/if the Spirit obliges. Ether 12 shows us that some are weak in writing, some are weak in speaking, but the Lord’s grace is sufficient. In the same way, the approaches of left-brained people may be weak to the right-brained and vice-versa; the various approaches we use can be either strengths or weaknesses. I believe the Lord lets us do the best we can with what we’ve got and His Spirit and grace get the job done.

Well I am not sure the analogy works here - you don't use a hammer to tweak your software settings or call Picasso to paint your house, and certain tools and modes of expression are just fitted to solve specific needs better than others.

 

But yes of course we should do the best we have with what we've got, and certainly we cannot do anything in the gospel without the Spirit and grace.

[rodheadlee]

You all had a real good thread going until some one took it personal. I like Rob's declaration that nothing is truly supernatural.

[pogi]

so let's just move on to how we can correct those mistakes, shall we. 

 

I am trying to show you a different "how".

 

 And let's also avoid any diversions such as trying to correct my personality

 

I don't think you have any personality defects Ahab.  You are perfectly able to make the right choices.

 

even if you could fix me so that I never made any mistakes when communicating with someone else to correct a...mistake they have mistaken for truth, the corrections I offered to correct a...mistake in someone elses beliefs would still need to be accepted by them.

 

Nobody needs to accept correction from you simply because you say they are wrong.  I don't think you appreciate the gravity of their beliefs and religious experience.