Differentiating Between The Spirit And Our Own Thoughts

[SmileyMcGee]

If your objective is to prove that he lives he most certainly is.

Please enlighten humanity with your proof, or even your reasoning for how God can be proven objectively.

Edited August 4, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Ahab]

Please enlighten humanity with your proof, or even your reasoning for how God can be proven objectively.

1. Defining objectively: www.thefreedictionary.com

a. existing independent of or external to the mind: objective reality

b. based on observable phenomena, empiral: objective facts

2. Anyone who has seen God or observed him is a witness that he is an objective reality, regardless of anyone who has not witnessed him or denies that he is.

Not that I'm the only one included amongst humanity who can enlighten you or others on this issue, but there you go. I am only one among many who realize God is an objective reality.

[SmileyMcGee]

1. Defining objectively: www.thefreedictionary.com

a. existing independent of or external to the mind: objective reality

b. based on observable phenomena, empiral: objective facts

2. Anyone who has seen God or observed him is a witness that he is an objective reality, regardless of anyone who has not witnessed him or denies that he is.

Not that I'm the only one included amongst humanity who can enlighten you or others on this issue, but there you go. I am only one among many who realize God is an objective reality.

How would you even know that something exists outside of your mind since you can't get outside of your mind? And how would you know that what you experience empirically in some way reflects "objective reality" (i.e., can an objective reality even be perceived by humans?)?

[Ahab]

How would you even know that something exists outside of your mind since you can't get outside of your mind? And how would you know that what you experience empirically in some way reflects "objective reality" (i.e., can an objective reality even be perceived by humans?)?

Substitute the word God for any other word you could use to refer to anything else that is outside of your own mind. Do you realize your keyboard and monitor/screen are outside of your own mind? Do you realize I am, too, along with everything else that is ourside of your own mind? Do you know the difference between yourself and some other thing or person? Can you tell when somebody else is speaking to you, or typing to you, or otherwise communicating with you?

First start with knowing the difference between what you are and what you think and what some other person is and thinks.

Hello! Are you me or some other person?

Believe it or not I can tell the difference.

[SmileyMcGee]

Substitute the word God for any other word you could use to refer to anything else that is outside of your own mind. Do you realize your keyboard and monitor/screen are outside of your own mind? Do you realize I am, too, along with everything else that is ourside of your own mind? Do you know the difference between yourself and some other thing or person? Can you tell when somebody else is speaking to you, or typing to you, or otherwise communicating with you?

First start with knowing the difference between what you are and what you think and what some other person is and thinks.

Hello! Are you me or some other person?

Believe it or not I can tell the difference.

You're equating empirical evidence with objective reality. they are not the same. Edited August 4, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[williamsmith]

Yesterday in Gospel Doctrine class the instructor, who is a former Mission President, related a teaching he attributed to Elder Bednar. I have no way of verifying whether or not Bednar said this so I would prefer for the focus to be on the content of what was said, and not who said it.

 

It was reported that in a meeting someone asked Elder Bednar how we can differentiate our own thoughts and ideas from a prompting of the spirit. Bednar reportedly said that IF the individual desires to serve God and keep his commandments and is living worthily, there is NO DIFFERENCE between an individual's thoughts and inspiration from the spirit.

 

I was stunned when this was said and before I could come up with a question or retort the lesson had moved on. This idea seems problematic for a multitude of reasons but I want to vet the idea here a little bit before I try talking to the teacher in case I'm missing something. The problems I see with this teaching include...

 

1- It creates an unreasonable expectation of infallibility in our leaders or anyone who claims to be following the spirit. Essentially any decision, idea, doctrinal opinion, relationship advice, that pops into a leaders head would be unquestionably the word of God.

 

2- Accepting this teaching would institutionalize all kinds of false doctrines, all in the name of follwing the leader who was follwing the spirit. This already exists to an alarming extent but this teaching would punctuate the cultural expectation.

 

3- There would never be any accountability for any errors, bad advice, false teachings etc. OR it would be assumed that any error was the result of an unrighteous decision maker.

 

4- The potential for abuse would be tremendous, both intentionally and unintentionally as people follow their leaders with the expectation of infallibility.

 

Now, of course there was the caviat that this is true only  IF the individual is seeking to follow God by keeping his commandments and seeking the spirit. But as a general rule we trust and accept that our leaders are doing their best to live righteously and follow the spirit, so without evidence to the contrary we would accept EVERYTHING they say as inspired from God.

 

We can probably all think of examples when a leader (or any other person) said, did, or taught something that was wrong, even though they believed it was right. Errors happen at every level within the church, from the home to the ward to the stake to the General officers.

 

So my question is this... Is there any reason to accept this teaching that promptings of the spirit are the same thing as our personal thoughts, ideas or impressions?

 

I'm having a problem similar to this.

You'll note he say's "without contrary evidence".  Clearly, he's not saying that we should just agree even if we don't.

The Church has a process for this, like I said, I'm going through it myself, but I have contrary evidence, so I don't believe what they are telling me.

 

For my issue the Church has a policy that is clearly stated.  However, a unofficial policy and tradition of the church has been placed onto that policy as if it's the same thing, when it's completely different from what the actual policy states in it's wording and meanings of those words.

I've found, that in these cases, we are not expected to simply obey, we can "Appeal".  I have to do it through the Stake Presidency on behalf of me to take it to the Presidency of the Church.

[thesometimesaint]

Our thoughts are our own thoughts. That doesn't doesn't mean that God can't inspire some of those thoughts.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I have found no answers (FairMormon, LDS org, or anywhere else) on how to know the difference between the spirit and my own thoughts. . 

Here is the best I could find, but it is not much  

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2011/08/28/fair-questions-2-recognizing-the-voice-of-the-spirit/

 

I hope someday I can have a strong spiritual experience that I cannot deny, because I want to know, not pascal's wager.  

 

I really don't like uncertainty on this topic. 

Edited August 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[janderich]

I have found no answers (FairMormon, LDS org, or anywhere else) on how to know the difference between the spirit and my own thoughts. . 

Here is the best I could find, but it is not much  

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2011/08/28/fair-questions-2-recognizing-the-voice-of-the-spirit/

 

I hope someday I can have a strong spiritual experience that I cannot deny, because I want to know, not pascal's wager.  

 

I really don't like uncertainty on this topic. 

Can you review and consider your thoughts? For example, what were you just thinking about just before I asked this question? Why were you thinking about it? If indeed you have found that you can review your thoughts, then I ask you, who is it that is reviewing them? Can the same mechanism that created the thought also analyze the thought or must there be something separate from the thought in order to analyze it? I would submit that the one who can analyze your thoughts is your spirit. It is constantly there, witnessing all of your thoughts, feelings, and actions. It is above mortal thought and not caught up in the mortal minds constant churning. 

 

The scriptures often term what I am explaining the 'spiritual mind'. It is separate and apart from the mortal mind. For example, "Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal" (2 Ne 9:39). The mortal mind is focused on the issues of the day. It constantly deals with questions, problems, and concerns and tries to formulate resolutions. Things like: Why am I wasting my time on the computer? Why does my wife act that way? What is the difference between my own thoughts and the spirit? The spiritual mind does not deal in fear and uncertainty. It recognizes the fear, it sees the uncertainty but is above it.

 

I have already discussed some of the ways to recognize the spirit. But Alma gives some good advice on the subject. After talking about giving place for the word in our heart he says it will begin to 'swell'. How then will we recognize these 'swellings'? 

 

1. It will begin to enlarge the soul. Have you ever felt as though your mind and body are capturing more? That the thought is expanding your mind past petty concerns and are reaching upward? 

2. It will begin to enlighten understanding. Do things sometimes start to appear clear? Somehow connections are made and clarity that was not there before arises?

3. It begins to be delicious. The understanding causes you to rejoice. It is as if you can taste the sweetness of the thought. Sometimes I can just bask in it for a short time.

 

I have found these descriptions by Alma to match my experience well. I have come to understand even better the witness of the spirit through these explanations. 

 

Now, I'm afraid of something. I'm afraid that you, or someone else, is going to start taking the mortal mind and judge what I am saying. In so doing, it will be the wrong way to approach this. It is not so much about analyzing as feeling. Just think back to times and experiences, and you may capture it. 

[thesometimesaint]

1. Defining objectively: www.thefreedictionary.com

a. existing independent of or external to the mind: objective reality

b. based on observable phenomena, empiral: objective facts

2. Anyone who has seen God or observed him is a witness that he is an objective reality, regardless of anyone who has not witnessed him or denies that he is.

Not that I'm the only one included amongst humanity who can enlighten you or others on this issue, but there you go. I am only one among many who realize God is an objective reality.

 

Tautology, and Circular reasoning. Many ancient Greeks claimed that they saw Zeus. They believed in Zeus, and structured their religion around that belief. So the question for you is, is Zeus your God?

[pogi]

I agree that there is no difference between our thoughts, feelings, and the spirit.  That is not to say that some thoughts and feelings are inspired while others are not.  I don't believe that discernment is something that can be taught, nor do I believe that we will ever attain perfect discernment in this life.  Like everything else, it is a process of progression through learning line upon line.  We cannot escape our perspectives, and all inspiration must pass through the  filter of our own imperfect perspectives and faulty judgements.  We are simply required to do our best.  As we do so, stumbling here and there and remaining humble, our perspectives change and we become a little better at discerning.    It is a gift that we seek for, it is a gift that we pray for, it is a gift that we desire to bless the lives of others with, it is a gift that is endowed and not learned by reading an instruction manual.  Like charity, it is a gift that cannot be spoken or understood by those without the gift, nor can we reach perfection of it in this life, but we can progress in it line upon line. 

 

Some people really struggle to trust in the process and the nuances and want the fruit without the work and patience through the growing process.  Like a tree, the growth and changes are almost imperceivable from day to day, until one day you taste the fruits thereof.   Even without tasting the immediate fruits, we can sense that the seed is good through it's sprouting and growing efforts.  That encourages us to endure in patience.  I am just stealing from Alma 32 if that was not obvious. 

Edited August 9, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

Now, I'm afraid of something. I'm afraid that you, or someone else, is going to start taking the mortal mind and judge what I am saying. 

 

I won't judge you 

 

3. It begins to be delicious. The understanding causes you to rejoice. It is as if you can taste the sweetness of the thought. Sometimes I can just bask in it for a short time.

 

I have found these descriptions by Alma to match my experience well. I have come to understand even better the witness of the spirit through these explanations. 

 

You have a strong testimony because the gospel is delicious to you, you wouldn't have a strong testimony if you didn't think it was delicious. 

 

It is like saying "Why are we here?" because "if we weren't here we wouldn't be asking that question" 

 

It would be much more impressive if we can verify that Alma 32 works for everyone that tries it, but we can't verify that

 

I have already discussed some of the ways to recognize the spirit. 

 

 What I expect is a strong confirmation that is beyond emotion and normal feelings,I want to feel the power of God, perhaps like an energy inside me, or something that I can know with 100% certainty that it comes from God. I want to be sure that it is not simply confirmation bias, luck, or a pattern that doesn't exist. 

 

 

Some people really struggle to trust in the process and the nuances and want the fruit without the work and patience through the growing process.

 

So good fruits come from God and bad fruits come from the human brain? 

 

There are many events in our life, good fruits will come eventually. 

Edited August 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Some people really struggle to trust in the process and the nuances and want the fruit without the work and patience through the growing process.  Like a tree, the growth and changes are almost imperceivable from day to day, until one day you taste the fruits thereof.   Even without tasting the immediate fruits, we can sense that the seed is good through it's sprouting and growing efforts.  That encourages us to endure in patience.  I am just stealing from Alma 32 if that was not obvious. 

 

 

What are good fruits? Please give me a definition 

Edited August 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

What I expect is a strong confirmation that is beyond emotion and normal feelings,I want to feel the power of God, perhaps like an energy inside me, or something tat I can know with 100% certainty that it comes from God. I want to be sure that it is not simply confirmation bias, luck, or a pattern that doesn't exist. 

 

Why would you expect 100% certainty if it has never been promised?

[pogi]

What are good fruits? Please give me a definition 

 

Like I said, it cannot be spoken.  

 

Try to explain what salt tastes like to someone that has never tasted salt so they can understand.  You will fall short. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Why would you expect 100% certainty if it has never been promised?

 

I used to be 100% certain, I want to be 100% certain that the Gospel is true, again. 

 

The members in my ward are 100% certain, most faithful members are 100% certain, I want that. 

 

but unfortunately as times goes on it keeps getting worst. 

Edited August 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Like I said, it cannot be spoken.  

 

Try to explain what salt tastes like to someone that has never tasted salt so they can understand.  You will fall short. 

 

Something that is not well defined can be easily manipulated, that is why I am asking you for a definition, what are good fruits? 

 

and like I said 

 

 

 What I expect is a strong confirmation that is beyond emotion and normal feelings,I want to feel the power of God, perhaps like an energy inside me, or something that I can know with 100% certainty that it comes from God. I want to be sure that it is not simply confirmation bias, luck, or a pattern that doesn't exist. 

Edited August 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

I used to be 100% certain, I want to be 100% certain that the Gospel is true, again. 

 

The members in my ward are 100% certain, most faithful members are 100% certain, I want that. 

 

but unfortunately as times goes on it keeps getting worst. 

 

I thought I was 100% certain before, but then I discovered that I have more to learn.  My perspective of truth is ever evolving and expanding and enlightening my vision.  It becomes more beautiful all the time.  I don't need 100% certainty to believe.  All I need is what the Lord gives me day to day - that is all I expect. 

 

Something that is not well defined can be easily manipulated that is why I am asking you for a definition. 

 

Something that is not experienced cannot be understood through words.  The only adequate definition for the taste of salt is "salty", therefore my definition for you is that good fruits are good-fruity.   Words will always fall short.  I guess you have to decide if you trust the process or not, because there is no other way.  There are those who desire to manipulate and those who do not.  You have to decide who you trust, I can't decide for you. 

Edited August 9, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

I thought I was 100% certain before, but then I discovered that I have more to learn.  My perspective of truth is ever evolving and expanding and enlightening my vision.  It becomes more beautiful all the time.  I don't need 100% certainty to believe.  All I need is what the Lord gives me day to day - that is all I expect. for you. 

 

are you 100% certain of the principles of the Gospel and the existence of a personal God? 

 

and why are most faithful LDS 100% certain? Why can't we have the same privilege of being 100% certain?

 

Uncertainty about that does't feel good. 

 

Something that is not experienced cannot be understood through words.  The only adequate definition for the taste of salt is "salty", therefore my definition for you is that good fruits are good-fruity.   Words will always fall short.  I guess you have to decide if you trust the process or not, because there is no other way.  There are those who desire to manipulate and those who do not.  You have to decide who you trust, I can't decide for you. 

 

that is the same answer I used to give, but please re-read my concerns. 

Edited August 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

are you 100% certain of the principles of the Gospel and the existence of a personal God?

I can say that I know as well as I know anything that God lives and loves me. I just can't say what I do and do not know for sure. That leaves me uncertain with just about everything. That is ok with me, I just follow what seems to work.

and why are most faithful LDS 100% certain? Why can't we have the same privilege of being 100% certain?

I believe that faithful LDS who claim to be 100% certain haven't really delved into the concepts of truth and reality.

Uncertainty about that does't feel good.

It used to make me uncomfortable too, but your feet become more stable in uncertainty when you realize that you don't need to be certain to be happy and confident in the Lord. Ironically, I actually find that my anxiety, depression, and confidence have increased dramatically as I accept my uncertainty, and fully accept therefore that mistakes are ok and part of the process. I am acceptable in uncertainty, and I am able to accept the Lord in uncertainty. I expect to one day know for certain, but not until this life is over.

that is the same answer I used to give, but please re-read my concerns.

Your concerns are valid, but your expectations are not. I understand your concerns, but I don't have any other answers. If it is certainty you want, you will be disappointed in this life with just about everything.

Edited August 9, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

 That leaves me uncertain with just about everything.  That is ok with me, I just follow what seems to work. 

 

So you are following the pascals wager? 

 

What is a better pascals wager? If you had to choose between Cryonics and the LDS church? 

 

 

[CV75]

So you are following the pascals wager?

I've known people who for a time have gotten by on Pascl's wager, but in the end it was insufficient to bring them happiness because a would-be God is not a God to believe in; they were really only believing in themselves.

 

The way I see it, I am unconditionally certain, meaning that I am willing to accept any unknown consequences of submitting to those things of which I possess certitude.

 

I’ve always liked President Hinckley’s treatment of the subject:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/10/faith-the-essence-of-true-religion?lang=eng

 

“Certitude is certainty. It is conviction. It is the power of faith that approaches knowledge—yes, that even becomes knowledge. It evokes enthusiasm, and there is no asset comparable to enthusiasm in overcoming opposition, prejudice, and indifference.”

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/the-things-of-which-i-know?lang=eng

“I confess that I do not know everything, but of some things I am certain. Of the things of which I know, I speak to you this morning.”

[pogi]

You said: So you are following the pascals wager?

I am following Alma 32.

Edited August 9, 2015 by pogi

[Calm]

My apologies if this has already been posted:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/04/bridging-the-gap-between-uncertainty-and-certainty?lang=eng

 

I personally think (and I think this talk illustrates this) "certainty" can only come through experiencing, that includes living the principles if you want to know whether or not they are true.

 

This sense of certainty in our self can be seen in a clinical or allegedly "logical" fashion as wrong, but the latter position makes for an unproductive and less than meaningful life imo.  For example, I believe down to a cellular level (figuratively speaking of course) that my husband loves me and for evidence I can point to not only my own feelings, but his expressed behavior and what others see and feel about these (they see how he acts and tell me he loves me).  However, 'intellectually' I can imagine the possibility that he is a really devious and capable, but somewhat stupid (in that there is no value in the deception that I can see) psychopath who has for 30 plus years been acting a role for me and everyone else for some bizarre reason and he does not in fact love me, but is repulsed by me...it is all an act.  Given the fact I cannot read his mind, I accept this as a theoretical possibility that can be discussed.  I see it as absolutely unrealistic though.  So on the one hand, I can say I have 100% certainty that my husband loves me but in another discussion using a different context I can say that I am uncertain that my husband loves me.  The first way of engaging in life gives meaning and value to my experience, the latter is a useless form of speculation imo and if someone uses this approach in their life, they will drain what joy and happiness they can experience by refusing to commit their heart and soul to something and someone because of their lack of being able to believe with full certainty in others.

 

Philosophical/scientific certainty (the idea of perfect and complete knowledge and being able to demonstrate it for everyone else time and time again) and practical certainty (it works for me) are different and one can be obtained in this life and the other not, imo.  Even scientific demonstrations may be messed up by unknown variables that have not been controlled for, for example.  And philosophy requires that one's assumptions are correct, but if the assumptions themselves are unprovable, so is the argument.

 

If you are demanding the first when only the second is available, you will never be satisfied.

 

Realistic expectations should be part of a healthy skepticism.  Unrealistic expectations happen when skepticism becomes a faith position in and of itself, imo.

Edited August 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I have found no answers (FairMormon, LDS org, or anywhere else) on how to know the difference between the spirit and my own thoughts. . 

Here is the best I could find, but it is not much  

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2011/08/28/fair-questions-2-recognizing-the-voice-of-the-spirit/

 

I hope someday I can have a strong spiritual experience that I cannot deny, because I want to know, not pascal's wager.  

 

I really don't like uncertainty on this topic. 

The illusion that certainty is possible is part of your scientism.

 

It is an affliction caused by the correspondence theory of truth.   I suggest you read this thread. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65602-on-the-deflationary-theory/?hl=deflationary

 

That's basically it.  It's about the idea that the word "true" is a WORD, nothing more, nothing less.  It says something like "I agree with what you are saying" or  "I also affirm that fact"

 

It seems totally commonsensical until one realizes why it is necessary to even HAVE a "deflationary theory of truth", and that happened because of the dualism of Greek philosophy and then picked up by Descartes and the others.

 

What that did was create a divide between language and "Truth".  It reified "Truth" into being some floating essence or Form of "Truthfulness".  Truth was usually said to be "correpondence" between the statement and a state of affairs in the world.  Certainly that is the case to some extent on a common sense level, but the problem is what people do with that.

 

What people do with it is make it into a metaphysical statement.  They say that a "statement" or "proposition" "corresponds to reality" REGARDLESS of our perceptions of reality.

 

There becomes a divorce between "reality" and "our perceptions of reality", and the statements are within the realm of perception, while reality is different or the same as the statement.

 

The central problem with that is that as humans, everything we see and feel and know is completely our perceptions and nothing more, ever, and cannot ever be anything "more" than our perceptions.

 

We assert "truths" or paradigms based on our perceptions and sometimes we make mistakes and have to re-define what "truth" is.

 

THAT is what makes this central to a religion based on revelation or an open canon.

 

We do not see "what is" as humans- we only see what our best guess of "reality" is, until we get a better look at it.  We may think that there is water on the road, only to have it turn into a mirage.  I actually had an experience once where I was driving in the desert and saw a mirage.  As I got closer, I thought "Boy- that is a pretty persistent mirage- it still looks like water!"  Then I hit it, and and my car started skidding and fishtailing and almost went off the road.  I found it hard to stop.

 

I got out and investigated.  There was a puddle there.   A big puddle.  But why did I skid so badly?  I got closer.  It smelled funny- another sense perception.  I put my finger in it.  

 

Should I have done that?  Let's keep you in suspense about that for a minute, and let you put yourself in my place

 

So let's summarize that experience.  I KNEW it was a "mirage"- nothing there, an optical illusion.  I was absolutely certain it was going to disappear.  It didn't.  Then my car stated skidding,  which was another sense perception and a scary one at that.  "What??  That was water?"   It made no sense!

 

Suddenly what I "knew" was gone, the "truth" that this was a mirage.

 

This was now "clearly" NOT a mirage.  It was "real".

 

What made it "real"?   The fact that I now had a different perspective of it- my car skidding across the road.  It was a new perception and another way of seeing it that had a tangible effect which was clearly scary and suddenly I now KNEW that it was "real".

 

I got out and looked.  I could see the "puddle" in the pavement- it was a darker color than the rest of the pavement.  Sense perception.  Now, because I was right there I also noticed a funny odor.  Another sense perception.

 

Then I stuck my finger in it.   A nanosecond after I did so, I realized that could have been a hazardous move. But I wanted still another perspective- more sense data to give me more information, but  I had no clue what this stuff could be.  It could be acid, it could be poison, some kind of hazardous stuff fallen from a truck- raw sewerage- who knows?

 

Literally who KNOWS?

 

All I had was my sense perceptions and theories about "what had really happened".

 

I looked at my finger.   It did not hurt, no evidence of a burning sensation.

 

The stuff was kind of pink and oily and definitely slippery.  All of those words are adjectives describing nouns which are my attempt at verbally describing an experience.   Was it "really" pink?   Maybe it was reflecting my shirt color.  I don't know.  Was it "really" "oily"?  It felt like oil to me- I have no clue what it "really"was.  Maybe it was just water after all that had picked up some oil from the road oil on a hot day.

 

I got back in my car, and found a napkin under the seat, and wiped off my finger.   Still no pain, no blistering of the skin.  I poured some water on it, and wiped it again.  No problem.

 

I drove on.

 

I drove carefully watching the road much more closely than before.  I slowed down.  I was a ware of possible hazards I might not have seen.  My behavior changed.

 

So where does "truth" enter into this discussion?   What was "true"?  Yes, I saw a "mirage" that was not a mirage, but it is true that I "experienced" a mirage.  My experience was that "clearly that is a mirage".  So YES it is "true" that I experienced a mirage.

 

Do we want to get weird and say that since a mirage is an illusion and I was definitely deluded into thinking it was a "real mirage" then it is not true that it was or was not a "false mirage"?

 

Frankly, THAT is the kind of discussion I would expect to erupt on this board.  THAT is the kind of thing that happens with all this!!   What is TRUTH?  What is the TRUTH of this situation?  It's all words.

 

What is a "false mirage"?  What is a "true mirage"?   What is the "essence" of a mirage?  What was the "substance" on the road?  Why did my car "really" skid?   What correct proposition corresponds to the truth of the situation??

 

There isn't any.  It depends on what you are talking about.  It's just communication.  "Truth" doesn't "really exist" in this situation.  Discussing the truth here has no relevance to anything, or really much else.  What possible use is it to discuss the truth here?

 

THE "REAL" SITUATION IS UNKNOWABLE AND THEREFORE IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION

 

Yet my life was changed- at least for a few minutes.  I drove more carefully.  I remember that weird situation to this day and think about it every time I see a "mirage" or a puddle.  Is it a "real" mirage to be ignored or a real puddle of who knows what?  How should I act in the presence of an unknown puddle?

 

What made that puddle "real" was the effect it had in my life.  I learned something from it.  I learned that things may or may not be what we think they are and even what we think they are may not be what they "really are" at all, but we still have to blunder though life minute to minute every day.

 

Worrying about "truth" when that term is undefinable is really a waste of time.

 

Now let me throw something else in here.  Do you think the above story "really happened" and was a "historical event" or not, and is that important for anything?

 

So why is this important for LDS people?

 

Because prophets are inspired human people.  The writers of the scriptures were inspired human people doing their best to communicate what they felt God wanted them to communicate.

 

We take in their words, and use our own brains and inspiration to amplify the paltry squiggles on a page, full of misunderstandings and "mirages" which may or may not be "true" or "true mirages" or "false mirages".

 

While doing so, we dip in our finger, and see if it resonates with our lives or not.   It's Alma 32 all the way.

 

In this life there is no "TRUTH" etched in stone, in words as if on the pediment of a Greek temple.  Doesn't happen.  It's a mirage itself to think that way.

 

All we have is cruising down the road of life looking out for puddles and sticking our finger in them to see what the heck is happening, and walking away with our best guess about how to live our lives better.

 

Then we have other people's stories telling us things they think are important, with no way to know if they are "true" in any abstract sense or not, except what the Spirit tells us and what resonates with us from the stories.

 

Like it or not, that's the way it is.  We had better get used to it and deal with it because this is a world full of true and false mirages and all we have is our fingers and nose and the Spirit to decide if it smells funny or not.