Seeking the Spirit/Role of the Spirit

[3DOP]

On 6/13/2016 at 2:20 PM, Eek! said:

One of the things I like most about Mormonism is the teaching that you have direct access to God the Holy Spirit as a source of guidance and insight. Maybe those aren't the exact words you'd use, but I think you get the idea.

Ahab posted this in a recent thread, and I think it's brilliant:

“The only thing I need to know any of our Lord's doctrine is the testimony of the Spirit bearing record to me. And yet some people act as if I should be primarily concerned with whether or not some teaching is "official Church doctrine".”

So I have a few questions, if you guys don't mind, for anyone regardless of whether or not you have an LDS background:

1. How do you reliably distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from all your other internal voices?

2. What priority do you place on what the Holy Spirit tells you? Does it have as much importance in your belief system as it apparently does in Ahab's? Why or why not?

3. Have you ever learned some truth that you had not known before more or less directly from or through the Holy Spirit, and if so, would you be willing to share that experience with us?  You can rephrase this question however you want if my wording doesn't fit right. 

My only request is, that this thread be a safe space for people to share personal beliefs and experiences, if they so choose, without being criticized for them. 

Thanks!

Eek...Hi. Good thread idea.

I recognize the voice of the Spirit fallibly, with practice. St. Paul spoke in Romans about the psychological battle that God's saints will fight if they would gain true freedom and peace of soul: "For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

Rom 7:18-20

First, we need to recognize the interior life of the soul into which we are given a glimpse in the verses above and those which follow. There will be continual conflict in the soul that tries to fulfill God's will. Later in ch. 7, Paul refers to his own misery and confusion exclaiming, "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" He gives the answer in ch. 8: "And they who are in the flesh, cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Rom 8:8, 9

Here is the difficulty. Next is to be convinced that the cross, which is foolishness to the flesh, which is abhorrent to a vigorous principle of self-will and fulfillment which stays in us until death, is our only hope of true joy and freedom. Love manifests itself by sacrifice, by dying to itself so that it may live for God and neighbor. Jesus showed us how. He is our example. But why then did Jesus have to go away to His Father's right hand? So that He could, through the operation of the Holy Ghost dwell more intimately with us, who have received the Paraclete, than had Jesus with the Apostles when He sat in their midst teaching them and answering questions. "For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him. For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us."

Rom 8: 13-18

Jesus said we needed to take up our own crosses if we would follow Him. But He also said that His yoke was easy and His burden light. I am confident that it is the Holy Ghost who is speaking to me when I have an interior urge to do that which "mortifies the deeds of the flesh". St. Paul used a helpful expression saying elsewhere, "I die daily." There are opportunities all day, every day, to die. Not physically, but to do that which we would rather not do. Most recently this happened to me when this morning I saw this thread and had an interior urge to "bear my testimony" if you will. "But it takes a lot of effort to explain", I objected. "I am on my first full day home from a long vacation and I need to relax and play a computer game that I love", was my next thought. I think these were examples of the various internal voices which you referenced above Eek.

I am learning that I do not know the path to peace and joy. I need to be guided by God's Spirit dwelling in me and giving me the strength to follow the law of love, to sacrifice myself.

Someone will say how making a post is nothing compared to the Cross of Calvary. Assuredly. But our good and gentle Saviour has permitted, and indeed commanded that every time we do some little act of charity, going contrary to our own wills, it is our cross and it is united to His Cross, and we are reminded by this experience how easy is His yoke and how light His burden. This is how the Spirit gives us internal joy, and sometimes even a thirst and desire to do it again, because it makes us truly happy with a joy that is more convincing with an argument of the heart than any intellectual argument of the mind.  

Some of you here know my story. I have been all over the map spiritually, but a Traditional Catholic now for around ten years. Someone recently asked me how I know I am right this time, and I didn't answer with history, or theology, or philosophy like I would so eagerly have done just a short time ago. Where I am now has been my school of the Cross, where I have learned a little the experience of "mortifying the deeds of the flesh". To be sure, I am a very little member of the Body of Christ's saints. I could tell of another recent "cross" that is so unweighty, and yet was so hard to take up because of the force of my strong will. You would rightly laugh at the smallness of this cross, but I am one of His small ones! It is my experience that the value of the knowledge of the interior presence of God in small ones who accept the assistance of the Spirit to take up any cross, large or small, is not calculable. It is almost uncanny to think how well God loves us that He delivers us in such ways. May God be praised always and in everything. May He increase and may I decrease. 

Rory...and now I can go play my game to boot! Haha.

Edited June 15, 2016 by 3DOP

[Bernard Gui]

On June 13, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Eek! said:

 

1. How do you reliably distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from all your other internal voices?

2. What priority do you place on what the Holy Spirit tells you? Does it have as much importance in your belief system as it apparently does in Ahab's? Why or why not?

3. Have you ever learned some truth that you had not known before more or less directly from or through the Holy Spirit, and if so, would you be willing to share that experience with us?  You can rephrase this question however you want if my wording doesn't fit right. 

 

1. Over the years I have learned that the voice of the Spirit invariably is accompanied by an immense feeling of love and peace, love for myself and increased love for others.

2. Highest priority. For example, my immediate response to the voice of the Spirit that gave me a course of action needed by my daughter that I discussed in detail on another thread.

3. The most powerful life-changing truth I learned from the Spirit happened on a Sunday afternoon almost 45 years ago when the Spirit revealed to Sister Gui and me simultaneously that we should marry and what was in store for our future. We were in the process of breaking off our relationship at that very moment. I'm not inclined to share details unless moved to do so by the Spirit.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[TheSkepticChristian]

What about Fortune-telling? Many are convinced that it is true, even some fortune-tellers are convinced they really have powers. 

How is Revelation different? Please, Thank You. 

 

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

So why did you tell me about it? Don't ever again tell me about something without details.  

You don't have the right to the details of my revelations in the same way it would be impertinent for me to ask for details about your sex life.

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

A Nostradamus believer wrote, "The tragic events of 9-11 were truly foreshadowed here. Presently, we use the Gregorian calendar. But during Nostradamus' lifetime they used the Julian Calendar. The seventh month on the Julian Calendar is September. The date 1999 provides a time clue of an event around the millennial change. However, the real clue is that the date 1999 is nothing more than a numeric anagram. If we reverse the order of the "1"s and "9"s, we arrive at the date 9-11-1 (the date of the 9-11 attacks)."  

Read More http://www.nostradamususa.com/911prophecy.html

That person is also an idiot. That is patternicity.

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

analyze  ≠ discredit, they are not synonymous! 

So if I was to furnish documentation of, say, three fulfilled predictions I received via revelation you would repent of your unbelief and be baptized? Or what is the point of this analysis?

[rodheadlee]

On 6/14/2016 at 9:13 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

I can also feel the difference between the spirit of Christmas and the spirit of Halloween, but it doesn't mean the spirits of Christmas and Halloween are real. Honestly, I felt the spirit of Halloween when I was a child, but it was just an emotion that my brain created for Halloween. I am sure many kids feel it. Like "Eek!" said, there many internal voices. 

How do you know your Revelation is not the result of selection bias, confirmation bias, patternicity, the Improbability Principle, Hallucination, false memory, or simply an emotion (specifically for religion) created by your brain? 

I am not saying Revelation is unreal, I just want to know how you can be so sure.  

I can be sure because my most profound revelation saved my wife's life (for now, we are all going to die sooner or later) I was given vision of my wife being terminally ill. It was a wide awake driving down I-5 in So Cal vision. It turned out my wife had cancer. After a many tests and an operation the oncologist declared "it's a miracle we caught this so soon, she won't need chemotherapy". So I don't see how God revealing my wife's cancer can fit any of your patterns, biases, principles, false memories or be created by my brain.

 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

What about Fortune-telling? Many are convinced that it is true, even some fortune-tellers are convinced they really have powers. 

How is Revelation different? Please, Thank You. 

 

Start your own thread about fortune telling and respect the wishes of the person who started this thread, please.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[boblloyd91]

On June 13, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Eek! said:

One of the things I like most about Mormonism is the teaching that you have direct access to God the Holy Spirit as a source of guidance and insight. Maybe those aren't the exact words you'd use, but I think you get the idea.

Ahab posted this in a recent thread, and I think it's brilliant:

“The only thing I need to know any of our Lord's doctrine is the testimony of the Spirit bearing record to me. And yet some people act as if I should be primarily concerned with whether or not some teaching is "official Church doctrine".”

So I have a few questions, if you guys don't mind, for anyone regardless of whether or not you have an LDS background:

1. How do you reliably distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from all your other internal voices?

2. What priority do you place on what the Holy Spirit tells you? Does it have as much importance in your belief system as it apparently does in Ahab's? Why or why not?

3. Have you ever learned some truth that you had not known before more or less directly from or through the Holy Spirit, and if so, would you be willing to share that experience with us?  You can rephrase this question however you want if my wording doesn't fit right. 

My only request is, that this thread be a safe space for people to share personal beliefs and experiences, if they so choose, without being criticized for them. 

Thanks!

If I may, sometimes I have had people describe some very sacred experiences as feeling like "ultimate reality" as if our life is the illusion and the experience of God is what is really real. 

[Eek!]

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 6:46 PM, The Nehor said:

Practice. I can now discern that some things are clearly and definitely the Spirit, some I am not sure on, and some I know are my deranged imagination. It took time and a few mistakes but God tends to be very tolerant of such mistakes.

Thank you Nehor.  Ime like any other skill it calls for practice, and a willingness to admit and correct one's mistakes. 

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 11:04 PM, mfbukowski said:

It is important to remember that the spirit teaches us what WE individually need to know to get us closer to Christ.

That means that perhaps if you worship rocks and trees, perhaps Islam will bring you closer to Christ- on your eternal journey if not right at the moment- then that may be the course God thinks you should follow perhaps for a lifetime even.

If you are a drunk on skid row, and the only door which is open to Christ is the Salvation Army, God may lead you in that direction- for now.

You don't teach differential calculus to an infant, you start with simple concepts and work up to more complex.  So don't think that because I get one answer to a prayer and you get another, that one of us is "wrong".  It means that I need to learn something other than what you need to learn right now

The beauty of Mormonism is the idea of eternal progression and that we have eterntieS to grow and learn it all- at our own pace, learning line upon line and precept by precept.

Even the savior himself did not know it all at once- at least not in this life.  That is another way objective knowledge ie:scientific observation is different than spiritual knowledge.

Science teaches what can be observed by all - spiritual knowledge teaches what we individually need to learn to progress in our lives.  Two different topics, two different ways to learn.

So just listen and learn and don't worry about what is "the spirit" and what "is not".   God is teaching you and that requires "all voices" because one of the things you need to learn is precisely THAT QUESTION for yourself.

It is different for everyone.  If it brings you closer to Christ, it is the spirit.  If it doesn't is isn't.

It's really that simple.

This is beautiful.  The board's system only lets me give you one "reputation" so I'm here supplementing that with a "full quote with liberal use of the bold feature".   

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 0:00 PM, 3DOP said:

I recognize the voice of the Spirit fallibly, with practice....

Jesus...is our example. But why then did Jesus have to go away to His Father's right hand? So that He could, through the operation of the Holy Ghost dwell more intimately with us, who have received the Paraclete, than had Jesus with the Apostles when He sat in their midst teaching them and answering questions. 

He also said that His yoke was easy and His burden light. I am confident that it is the Holy Ghost who is speaking to me when I have an interior urge to do that which "mortifies the deeds of the flesh".  St. Paul used a helpful expression saying elsewhere, "I die daily." There are opportunities all day, every day, to die. Not physically, but to do that which we would rather not do. Most recently this happened to me when this morning I saw this thread and had an interior urge to "bear my testimony" if you will. "But it takes a lot of effort to explain", I objected. "I am on my first full day home from a long vacation and I need to relax and play a computer game that I love", was my next thought. I think these were examples of the various internal voices which you referenced above Eek.

I am learning that I do not know the path to peace and joy. I need to be guided by God's Spirit dwelling in me and giving me the strength to follow the law of love, to sacrifice myself.

I was really hoping someone coming from a non-LDS perspective would post.  Thank you very much 3DOP, for being sensitive to that urge and taking the time to "bear your testimony" here.

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 3:53 PM, Bernard Gui said:

1. Over the years I have learned that the voice of the Spirit invariably is accompanied by an immense feeling of love and peace, love for myself and increased love for others.

2. Highest priority. For example, my immediate response to the voice of the Spirit that gave me a course of action needed by my daughter that I discussed in detail on another thread.

3. The most powerful life-changing truth I learned from the Spirit happened on a Sunday afternoon almost 45 years ago when the Spirit revealed to Sister Gui and me simultaneously that we should marry and what was in store for our future. We were in the process of breaking off our relationship at that very moment. I'm not inclined to share details unless moved to do so by the Spirit.

Thank you Bernard, and yes I remember your post in another thread, having to do with the impression to send flowers.  I wonder how often I've dismissed some such impression as just an idle thought when in reality it was an opportunity to lighten someone's burden. 

22 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I can be sure because my most profound revelation saved my wife's life (for now, we are all going to die sooner or later) I was given vision of my wife being terminally ill. It was a wide awake driving down I-5 in So Cal vision. It turned out my wife had cancer. After a many tests and an operation the oncologist declared "it's a miracle we caught this so soon, she won't need chemotherapy". So I don't see how God revealing my wife's cancer can fit any of your patterns, biases, principles, false memories or be created by my brain.

 

Wow!  

*  *  *  *

My thanks to you who have posted here and who provided links.  I haven't looked at the links yet but will do so tonight.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/15/2016 at 8:26 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

He has the right to express his religious beliefs, but it is impossible to have a conversation with him because he doesn't want to explain. . 

He says he receives Revelations that tell him the future, but refuses to give details. In my opinion that is boasting .  

He tells me "Nope, not for sharing. Get your own" That is Pride. 

Some inspiration is very personal and not to be treated in secular detail, much as our temple experiences often remain very private and sacred.  You need to be respectful of that.  Even if he is a joker at times, the Nehor is still entitled to retain some privacy -- if he so chooses.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Eek!]

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 9:26 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

He has the right to express his religious beliefs, but it is impossible to have a conversation with him because he doesn't want to explain. 

He... refuses to give details.

Okay, I can see your side and I can see his.

How about this:  I'll put one of my experiences out there for you to analyze and critique.  I don't think it's a religious experience per se, more like an experiment, but it involved "listening" to "feelings" to get information that I could not normally have "known".   And I suppose that my interpretation of the results ended up becoming part of my belief system. 

Do you have a background in analyzing statistical probability?  I do not, and that might be useful.

Briefly, I set up an experiment where I could run multiple tests or trials (I'm sure there is a precise terminology but I don't know it) and record the results.  I can describe the experiment to you in detail and will answer any questions you have - nothing related to it will be off limits.  I would be interested in your critique of how I set up the experiment, as I tried to guard against unintentionally getting the results I wanted and thereby deluding myself.

Then I can tell you the results and you can tell me your interpretation of them.  Your conclusion may be that I'm an idiot or a liar or both, in which case I'll get to find out how attached my ego is to my own interpretation. 

Would you be interested? 

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 11:04 PM, mfbukowski said:

Science teaches what can be observed by all - spiritual knowledge teaches what we individually need to learn to progress in our lives.  Two different topics, two different ways to learn.

Mfbukowski, assuming TheSkepticChristian takes me up on my offer, I'll be describing an attempt to do a simple but hopefully valid experiment involving something that may fall under the "spiritual" umbrella.  So I'd welcome your critique as well. 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Eek!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

Mfbukowski, assuming TheSkepticChristian takes me up on my offer, I'll be describing an attempt to do a simple but hopefully valid experiment involving something that may fall under the "spiritual" umbrella.  So I'd welcome your critique as well.

The spirit is for real questions not entertainment.

Try a ouija board instead.  It won't work  It's sign seeking

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The spirit is for real questions not entertainment.

Try a ouija board instead.  It won't work  It's sign seeking

And this hits the nail on the head. The Spirit can't be summoned just to satisfy someone's curiosity or appears automatically when someone prays. A fellow in the Book of Mormon asked for a sign, but he was not pleased with the result.

[Eek!]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The spirit is for real questions not entertainment.

Try a ouija board instead.  It won't work  It's sign seeking

I am well aware of the implications of your statement that "it's sign seeking" (which is something the Evangelicals wrongly accuse the Mormons of).  Aren't you being just a little bit judgmental?  

Aren't you the guy who said:

"It is different for everyone.  If it brings you closer to Christ, it is the spirit.  If it doesn't is isn't.

It's really that simple." ? [emphasis in the original]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And this hits the nail on the head. The Spirit can't be summoned just to satisfy someone's curiosity or appears automatically when someone prays. A fellow in the Book of Mormon asked for a sign, but he was not pleased with the result.

I'm also aware of that fellow in the Book of Mormon (and unlike him, I was pleased with my result).  As I said to mfbukowski, aren't you being just a little bit judgmental?   

How do you know, based on so little information, that I wasn't lacking in wisdom, and didn't ask of God?

Isn't there a scripture that says, "By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things"? 

To both of you:  Did I say something that seemed to threaten your belief system?  I certainly didn't mean to.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Eek!

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And this hits the nail on the head. The Spirit can't be summoned just to satisfy someone's curiosity or appears automatically when someone prays. A fellow in the Book of Mormon asked for a sign, but he was not pleased with the result.

What many do not realize I guess is that the spirit speaks about the "rightness" of a course of action, not an objective state of affairs

That is really the crux of all the seeking after historical evidence, scientific arguments to see the world as 'designed', biblical archaeology, etc.

The logic, the philosophy behind it is all wrong.  Philosophers get it- but I cannot teach it here because for some reason these folks on both sides just plain do not see it nor do they want to see it or understand it.  You have the atheists on one side saying God does not exist because you cannot produce evidence- a sign- and then you have the Mormons saying the same thing without even realizing it!!

They are totally hooked into the exact same view as the atheists!!  It's idiotic! 

They still believe that God must leave SOME evidence- the historicity of the BOM, biblical archaeology, evolution, the big bang and ex nihilo, yada yada yada.

It's all the same stuff.  The history buffs duke it out with the atheists about if there is evidence or no evidence totally missing the entire point that that is like looking in your suitcase for an elephant.

This entire board is dedicated to these questions it appears.  They are all the same.

GOD SPEAKS TO OUR SUBJECTIVE SELVES ABOUT A COURSE OF ACTION.

Yes it is the "truth of all things" but it is the SUBJECTIVE "truth of all things".  It is about our ATTITUDE toward those things we hold "true" or suspicious or are agnostic about as well.

It is about how we should THINK about the "truth of all things".

The core of our personal reality is how each of us THINKS about these issues

I personally believe that Jesus the Christ suffered and died on calvary for my personal sins.  That BELIEF is what changed my life.  It was not objective evidence for or against it- those are actually irrelevant because in all of these issues WE CANNOT KNOW OBJECTIVELY THRU SCIENCE that Jesus died for the sins of the world.

It is the subjective BELIEF in billions of lives that IS Christianity- that has given us the culture of the West including science itself.

Look at Bellarmine vs Galileo !  Bellarmine wanted objective evidence for the scriptures and to get that he clung to the SCIENTIFIC belief that the sun orbited earth.

How ridiculous was that?  

So why are we still arguing with the same logic?  Evolution cannot be "TRUE" because it conflicts with the scriptures.  Sound familiar?  Copernicus and Galileo cannot have the "TRUTH" because it conflicts with the scriptures.

The Book of Mormon cannot be "TRUE" because it has no evidence.  Jesus didn't die for our sins because we have no scientific evidence.

ITS ALL THE SAME SILLY ARGUMENT- on both sides

I could give you a list of philosophers as long as your arm who happen to be atheists who see this perfectly clearly AND a list of their colleagues who are theists who are theists.  They admire and discuss and have no problems with the other point of view because they know both are VALID intellectually.  The also know that they differ subjectively and don't care.

Anyway, enough of the tirade- I have been doing this for years here to no avail.  I talk to students of philosophy and they get it right now.  I don't know why the same words said here and there make a difference.  Probably we have the same disease: philosophy!

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Eek! said:

 

...As I said to mfbukowski, aren't you being just a little bit judgmental?  .... 

To both of you:  Did I say something that seemed to threaten your belief system?  I certainly didn't mean to.

Uh, no.

You are not able to say anything which would threaten my belief system, trust me.

Keep Calm and Carry On.

Perhaps some day you will see it differently, and I wish you the best!  Sorry about sounding judgmental.

Edited June 17, 2016 by mfbukowski

[rodheadlee]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What many do not realize I guess is that the spirit speaks about the "rightness" of a course of action, not an objective state of affairs

That is really the crux of all the seeking after historical evidence, scientific arguments to see the world as 'designed', biblical archaeology, etc.

The logic, the philosophy behind it is all wrong.  Philosophers get it- but I cannot teach it here because for some reason these folks on both sides just plain do not see it nor do they want to see it or understand it.  You have the atheists on one side saying God does not exist because you cannot produce evidence- a sign- and then you have the Mormons saying the same thing without even realizing it!!

They are totally hooked into the exact same view as the atheists!!  It's idiotic! 

They still believe that God must leave SOME evidence- the historicity of the BOM, biblical archaeology, evolution, the big bang and ex nihilo, yada yada yada.

It's all the same stuff.  The history buffs duke it out with the atheists about if there is evidence or no evidence totally missing the entire point that that is like looking in your suitcase for an elephant.

This entire board is dedicated to these questions it appears.  They are all the same.

GOD SPEAKS TO OUR SUBJECTIVE SELVES ABOUT A COURSE OF ACTION.

Yes it is the "truth of all things" but it is the SUBJECTIVE "truth of all things".  It is about our ATTITUDE toward those things we hold "true" or suspicious or are agnostic about as well.

It is about how we should THINK about the "truth of all things".

The core of our personal reality is how each of us THINKS about these issues

I personally believe that Jesus the Christ suffered and died on calvary for my personal sins.  That BELIEF is what changed my life.  It was not objective evidence for or against it- those are actually irrelevant because in all of these issues WE CANNOT KNOW OBJECTIVELY THRU SCIENCE that Jesus died for the sins of the world.

It is the subjective BELIEF in billions of lives that IS Christianity- that has given us the culture of the West including science itself.

Look at Bellarmine vs Galileo !  Bellarmine wanted objective evidence for the scriptures and to get that he clung to the SCIENTIFIC belief that the sun orbited earth.

How ridiculous was that?  

So why are we still arguing with the same logic?  Evolution cannot be "TRUE" because it conflicts with the scriptures.  Sound familiar?  Copernicus and Galileo cannot have the "TRUTH" because it conflicts with the scriptures.

The Book of Mormon cannot be "TRUE" because it has no evidence.  Jesus didn't die for our sins because we have no scientific evidence.

ITS ALL THE SAME SILLY ARGUMENT- on both sides

I could give you a list of philosophers as long as your arm who happen to be atheists who see this perfectly clearly AND a list of their colleagues who are theists who are theists.  They admire and discuss and have no problems with the other point of view because they know both are VALID intellectually.  The also know that they differ subjectively and don't care.

Anyway, enough of the tirade- I have been doing this for years here to no avail.  I talk to students of philosophy and they get it right now.  I don't know why the same words said here and there make a difference.  Probably we have the same disease: philosophy!

Yeah but the study of history and archaeology is fun. If I had not studied the history of the Lost Ten Tribes,  Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Greeks and the Romans before the BoM arrived at my door I would not have been prepared to receive it.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah but the study of history and archaeology is fun. If I had not studied the history of the Lost Ten Tribes,  Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Greeks and the Romans before the BoM arrived at my door I would not have been prepared to receive it.

Oh yes absolutely!

But there is nothing in that statement that links it to spirituality whatsoever.

What philosophers look for is logical consistency and logical equivalence, even taking in all the ambiguity in the context.

A statement such as "Jesus was crucified" is a historical statement- in principle it could be historically verified by having strong evidence that there was a person "Jesus" who was crucified.  You could specify years and circumstances- there are perhaps many people named "Jesus" who have been crucified, but that does not make them the savior.  There perhaps might exist many "saviors"- we are said to be "saviors on Mt. Zion"- I am certain there are probably hundreds of men named "Jesus" who are "saviors on Mt. Zion" under those parameters.  And on and on the supposed objective evidence would go to supposedly "prove" what "Jesus is the savior" even means.

The statement "Jesus is the savior" is a religious statement.

There is no logical way to connect those- one cannot imply the other.   Do all "saviors" have to be "crucified"? 

Similarly there is no way to make a statement that is subjective into one that is objective

Statements about what I believe have nothing to do with statements about what others believe. 

So this process is just a black hole.  There will NEVER be enough "evidence" to prove the meaning of what the statement "Jesus is the Christ" means to a believer- the sense of peace and calm and knowledge that after all we can do, our sins are forgiven.

So yes, it's fun, but it doesn't prove much

But the atheists who take their comfort in that position that they are "right" are no more "right" than the believers who think they have "evidence"- and that goes back to the Galileo argument above.

Neither side seems to see these points.

I have a testimony and that is all that counts or can be said.  Period, game over.  It is my personal belief as verified by God himself, I am convinced, and seeing it as I do, nothing can touch it.

Edited June 17, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Eek! said:

I am well aware of the implications of your statement that "it's sign seeking" (which is something the Evangelicals wrongly accuse the Mormons of).  Aren't you being just a little bit judgmental?  

Aren't you the guy who said:

"It is different for everyone.  If it brings you closer to Christ, it is the spirit.  If it doesn't is isn't.

It's really that simple." ? [emphasis in the original]

I'm also aware of that fellow in the Book of Mormon (and unlike him, I was pleased with my result).  As I said to mfbukowski, aren't you being just a little bit judgmental?   

How do you know, based on so little information, that I wasn't lacking in wisdom, and didn't ask of God?

Isn't there a scripture that says, "By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things"? 

To both of you:  Did I say something that seemed to threaten your belief system?  I certainly didn't mean to.

What does this mean?

Quote

All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

D&C 93:30

President Kimball- not exactly a "relativist" said this:

Quote

 

Experience in one field does not automatically create expertise in another field. Expertise in religion comes from personal righteousness and from revelation. The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.” (D&C 93:30.) A geologist who has discovered truths about the structure of the earth may be oblivious to the truths God has given us about the eternal nature of the family.

If I can only make clear this one thing, it will give us a basis on which to build. Man cannot discover God or his ways by mere mental processes. One must be governed by the laws which control the realm into which he is delving. To become a plumber, one must study the laws which govern plumbing. He must know stresses and strains, temperatures at which pipes will freeze, laws which govern steam, hot water, expansion, contraction, and so forth. One might know much about plumbing and be a complete failure in training children or getting along with men. One might be the best of bookkeepers and yet not know anything of electricity. One might know much about buying and selling groceries and be absolutely ignorant of bridge building.

One might be a great authority on the hydrogen bomb and yet know nothing of banking. One might be a noted theologian and yet be wholly untrained in watchmaking. One might be the author of the law of relativity and yet know nothing of the Creator who originated every law. I repeat, these are not matters of opinion. They are absolute truths. These truths are available to every soul.

Any intelligent man may learn what he wants to learn. He may acquire knowledge in any field, though it requires much thought and effort. It takes more than a decade to get a high school diploma; it takes an additional four years for most people to get a college degree; it takes nearly a quarter-century to become a great physician. Why, oh, why do people think they can fathom the most complex spiritual depths without the necessary experimental and laboratory work accompanied by compliance with the laws that govern it? Absurd it is, but you will frequently find popular personalities, who seem never to have lived a single law of God, discoursing in interviews on religion. How ridiculous for such persons to attempt to outline for the world a way of life!

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

This is the beauty of Mormonism.  Its pragmatism is irrefutable.

THIS is what Mormons mean by "absolute truth"

Edited June 17, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Eek!]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 Sorry about sounding judgmental.

I accept and do appreciate your apology.  Thank you.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What does this mean?

It means that you and I draw the boundaries of what the Holy Spirit/Spirit of God/Holy Ghost/Paraclete/Light of Christ/Spirit of Truth can and cannot do, or will and will not do, in different places. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Eek! said:

I am well aware of the implications of your statement that "it's sign seeking" (which is something the Evangelicals wrongly accuse the Mormons of).  Aren't you being just a little bit judgmental?  

Aren't you the guy who said:

"It is different for everyone.  If it brings you closer to Christ, it is the spirit.  If it doesn't is isn't.

It's really that simple." ? [emphasis in the original]

I'm also aware of that fellow in the Book of Mormon (and unlike him, I was pleased with my result).  As I said to mfbukowski, aren't you being just a little bit judgmental?   

How do you know, based on so little information, that I wasn't lacking in wisdom, and didn't ask of God?

Isn't there a scripture that says, "By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things"? 

To both of you:  Did I say something that seemed to threaten your belief system?  I certainly didn't mean to.

Nothing I said was intended to be judgmental nor was it a reaction to a threat to my belief system which remains intact. I'm simply stating that I don't believe the Spirit is subject to our command. It goes where It listeth, not where we list.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Eek!]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Nothing I said was intended to be judgmental. I'm simply stating that I don't believe the Spirit is subject to our command. It goes where It wills, not where we will It.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you intended by drawing a parallel with Korihor.

And I don't think I ever said or implied that the Spirit is subject to our command; if it sounds to you like I did, PLEASE point it out, as I need to either correct or clarify what I said, and learn from my mistake.  That really is not what I intended. 

And I definitely agree that the Spirit "goes were it wills, not where we will it."

Edited June 17, 2016 by Eek!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

I accept and do appreciate your apology.  Thank you.

It means that you and I draw the boundaries of what the Holy Spirit/Spirit of God/Holy Ghost/Paraclete/Light of Christ/Spirit of Truth can and cannot do, or will and will not do, in different places. 

 

I am not sure that we do, but fair enough.

Let's see the experimental results!

I wish you well in this endeavor!

[Guest]

On June 15, 2016 at 10:26 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

He has the right to express his religious beliefs, but it is impossible to have a conversation with him because he doesn't want to explain. . 

He says he receives Revelations that tell him the future, but refuses to give details. In my opinion that is boasting .  

He tells me "Nope, not for sharing. Get your own" That is Pride. 

Revelations are private matters, when received for oneself or family and are no one's business but their own. They are also sacred, it is not boasting to say they received them. As a Father I have have known if troubles that my family was to endure. I once pulled my son aside and told him something that was going to happen, that I had seen it...something that was going to happen to him. It came to pass just as I told him. My daughter called from her mission upset about an area that she was being transferred to, I knew the call was coming and told her what would happen if she just trusted in the Lord...it all came to pass. I am not boasting, I am bearing witness, it can and does happen. So Nehor, is not boasting and dispite the red remark, he is not required to give proof. God speaks to people through the Holy Ghost all the time, but not to the unbelieving. As one wonderful scripture said, "ye have not because ye have asked not" (too paraphrase). 

[Eek!]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Let's see the experimental results!

I wish you well in this endeavor!

Thank you.  Okay, here goes...

A quick overview of the sequence of events that led up to this post:

TheSkepticChristian questioned TheNehor's statement that he'd received personal revelation from the Spirit, and Nehor declined to give details. SkepticChristian objected, and I could see both of their sides, so I offered to put one of my own experiences out there for him to analyze and critique, specifying that it was not a religions experience per se. As of this writing I haven't heard from SkepticChristian, but after some preliminary discussion mfbukowski posted, “Let's see the experimental results!” So here we are.

Twenty-something years ago I read a couple of very interesting books. The first was “Natural Grace” by biochemist Rupert Sheldrake and theologian Matthew Fox (the two seemed to have a lot of common ground despite their different starting points). In the book they present the idea of morphic fields, which are non-physical connections that contain information. For instance, if you've ever seen a flock of birds or a school of fish maneuver in perfect synchrony, you have seen evidence of a morphic field. These maneuvers are coordinated more closely than these animals' reaction times to an external stimulus would allow, so the theory is that they are responding to a field of some kind which we cannot observe directly. These fields may be responsible for other phenomena which are beyond the scope of this post. It seemed to me that morphic fields, if they exist, are an aspect of non-physical, or spiritual, reality, even if they do not necessarily have obvious religious implications. And if there is – at some level – one great field which can convey or confirm truth that we are all within or all have access to, that may be something that shows up in religion under a different name. I'm NOT saying that morphic fields are the only possible explanation for apparent non-physical connections. In this paragraph I'm mainly just giving a book report.

The second book was “Healing Words”, by physician Larry Dossey. It was about the effects of prayer from a medical standpoint. Briefly, when the effects of prayer were recorded and examined as well as could reasonably be done, it was shown to be a demonstrably effective treatment (which will come as no surprise to many here). Dossey's description of actual research that was done on prayer was particularly fascinating to me. This included controlled testing for the influence of prayer (or prayer-like focused attention) on random events generated by a computer, and found effects that were unlikely to have been the result of chance. They even looked at prayer strategies, such as praying for a specific desired outcome vs. “Thy will be done”. I found the evidence presented and conclusions drawn to be plausible, assuming none of the data was fabricated or cherry-picked.

The idea of a subtle field which contains or conveys information on a non-physical plane was not at all far-fetched to me, as I already believed that a person could sense or feel truth under certain conditions. On the other hand, the idea of actually doing controlled research into prayer was a completely new and fascinating idea to me.

Here is the “picture” that formed in my mind – and I am not saying that this picture was accurate! - only that it made sense to me at the time: Perhaps there is a very large but subtle field that contains or conveys truth, which we can access through prayer or prayerful contemplation or something similar. Does the Holy Spirit communicate via something that Sheldrake might call a “morphic field”? How would one go about investigating this idea?

Well, this might be one way: Write a program that would randomly generate one of two results with a 50-50 chance of it being either one, but the program would keep the result hidden until after I had made my guess. The program would keep track of how many guesses were right and how many were wrong. My task would be to somehow access this hypothetical subtle field which would hopefully contain the information of which hidden result the computer had generated. My plan was to approach this the same way one might approach listening for the “voice” of the Spirit.

This crazy idea of such a field and the even crazier idea that I could actually test for it preoccupied my mind for many days. I prayed about whether I should try this crazy experiment, and came to the conclusion that it was not wrong to proceed.

At some point I had a couple days free time where I could go to the office and use the computer on my own (didn't have a computer at home – yes, it was that long ago). I wrote the program (in Basic) and tested it over the course of the first day, and the hidden-until-guessed results it generated certainly appeared to be random.

I believe that my test met the criteria for a "binomial experiment" (wherein each trial has two possible outcomes, the same probabilities for each trial, and the trials do not affect one another), and I had read somewhere that either 36 or 39 trials were necessary to meet some standard for validity for a binomial experiment. So I decided to do 40 trials. I had no particular goal in mind as far as how many out of 40 I hoped to get right – I figured the results would speak for themselves, as long as I tried my best. This experiment was just a personal quest for truth, and was never intended to have any implications for anyone other than myself. I learned some things the hard way, but we'll get to that later. Must admit that my goals were ill-defined, so maybe instead of calling it a “quest for truth” I should just call it an “inquiry”.

Remember that my offer to post this was originally to give TheSkepticChristian something arguably falling within the topic of this thread that he could analyze and critique, but without it being a sacred personal experience of the kind that most people would feel uncomfortable sharing and maybe even uncomfortable reading about.  I think my little experiment fits those requirements.  I figured that a discussion of my little experiment would be SkepticChristian's best chance to have an unrestricted dialogue on this sort of topic, so I made the offer. I hope it doesn't make people uncomfortable, but if it does, let me know.

At this point in the narrative I would like to hit the “pause” button and take questions, comments, critiques, and challenges of my experiment as I have described it to this point, and then I'll post the results later. I don't look forward to the critiques and challenges, but expect them to come with the territory anyway. Please don't ask me to be an apologist for Rupert Sheldrake, Matthew Fox, or Larry Dossey – it has been twenty-something years, and their ideas were more complex than what my simple mind could retain for that long.

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Eek!

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Eek! said:

Thank you.  Okay, here goes...

A quick overview of the sequence of events that led up to this post:

TheSkepticChristian questioned TheNehor's statement that he'd received personal revelation from the Spirit, and Nehor declined to give details. SkepticChristian objected, and I could see both of their sides, so I offered to put one of my own experiences out there for him to analyze and critique, specifying that it was not a religions experience per se. As of this writing I haven't heard from SkepticChristian, but after some preliminary discussion mfbukowski posted, “Let's see the experimental results!” So here we are.

Twenty-something years ago I read a couple of very interesting books. The first was “Natural Grace” by biochemist Rupert Sheldrake and theologian Matthew Fox (the two seemed to have a lot of common ground despite their different starting points). In the book they present the idea of morphic fields, which are non-physical connections that contain information. For instance, if you've ever seen a flock of birds or a school of fish maneuver in perfect synchrony, you have seen evidence of a morphic field. These maneuvers are coordinated more closely than these animals' reaction times to an external stimulus would allow, so the theory is that they are responding to a field of some kind which we cannot observe directly. These fields may be responsible for other phenomena which are beyond the scope of this post. It seemed to me that morphic fields, if they exist, are an aspect of non-physical, or spiritual, reality, even if they do not necessarily have obvious religious implications. And if there is – at some level – one great field which can convey or confirm truth that we are all within or all have access to, that may be something that shows up in religion under a different name. I'm NOT saying that morphic fields are the only possible explanation for apparent non-physical connections. In this paragraph I'm mainly just giving a book report.

The second book was “Healing Words”, by physician Larry Dossey. It was about the effects of prayer from a medical standpoint. Briefly, when the effects of prayer were recorded and examined as well as could reasonably be done, it was shown to be a demonstrably effective treatment (which will come as no surprise to many here). Dossey's description of actual research that was done on prayer was particularly fascinating to me. This included controlled testing for the influence of prayer (or prayer-like focused attention) on random events generated by a computer, and found effects that were unlikely to have been the result of chance. They even looked at prayer strategies, such as praying for a specific desired outcome vs. “Thy will be done”. I found the evidence presented and conclusions drawn to be plausible, assuming none of the data was fabricated or cherry-picked.

The idea of a subtle field which contains or conveys information on a non-physical plane was not at all far-fetched to me, as I already believed that a person could sense or feel truth under certain conditions. On the other hand, the idea of actually doing controlled research into prayer was a completely new and fascinating idea to me.

Here is the “picture” that formed in my mind – and I am not saying that this picture was accurate! - only that it made sense to me at the time: Perhaps there is a very large but subtle field that contains or conveys truth, which we can access through prayer or prayerful contemplation or something similar. Does the Holy Spirit communicate via something that Sheldrake might call a “morphic field”? How would one go about investigating this idea?

Well, this might be one way: Write a program that would randomly generate one of two results with a 50-50 chance of it being either one, but the program would keep the result hidden until after I had made my guess. The program would keep track of how many guesses were right and how many were wrong. My task would be to somehow access this hypothetical subtle field which would hopefully contain the information of which hidden result the computer had generated. My plan was to approach this the same way one might approach listening for the “voice” of the Spirit.

This crazy idea of such a field and the even crazier idea that I could actually test for it preoccupied my mind for many days. I prayed about whether I should try this crazy experiment, and came to the conclusion that it was not wrong to proceed.

At some point I had a couple days free time where I could go to the office and use the computer on my own (didn't have a computer at home – yes, it was that long ago). I wrote the program (in Basic) and tested it over the course of the first day, and the hidden-until-guessed results it generated certainly appeared to be random.

I believe that my test met the criteria for a "binomial experiment" (wherein each trial has two possible outcomes, the same probabilities for each trial, and the trials do not affect one another), and I had read somewhere that either 36 or 39 trials were necessary to meet some standard for validity for a binomial experiment. So I decided to do 40 trials. I had no particular goal in mind as far as how many out of 40 I hoped to get right – I figured the results would speak for themselves, as long as I tried my best. This experiment was just a personal quest for truth, and was never intended to have any implications for anyone other than myself. I learned some things the hard way, but we'll get to that later. Must admit that my goals were ill-defined, so maybe instead of calling it a “quest for truth” I should just call it an “inquiry”.

Remember that my offer to post this was originally to give TheSkepticChristian something arguably falling within the topic of this thread that he could analyze and critique, but without it being a sacred personal experience of the kind that most people would feel uncomfortable sharing and maybe even uncomfortable reading about.  I think my little experiment fits those requirements.  I figured that a discussion of my little experiment would be SkepticChristian's best chance to have an unrestricted dialogue on this sort of topic, so I made the offer. I hope it doesn't make people uncomfortable, but if it does, let me know.

At this point in the narrative I would like to hit the “pause” button and take questions, comments, critiques, and challenges of my experiment as I have described it to this point, and then I'll post the results later. I don't look forward to the critiques and challenges, but expect them to come with the territory anyway. Please don't ask me to be an apologist for Rupert Sheldrake, Matthew Fox, or Larry Dossey – it has been twenty-something years, and their ideas were more complex than what my simple mind could retain for that long.

 

Just to make it clear in case that last reply threw you off, I have already made my opinion known.

I am going to start a thread soon- next week maybe if I get the time about how reality itself is "virtual"

https://t.reembed.com/2HBkPD1MhJtN1PsFqD2073EE

Quote

 

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality

The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Edited June 19, 2016 by mfbukowski