Am I a naughty Mormon boy if I like Nietzsche?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I see what you're saying, but it seems like all religions use "aids" to prepare for spiritual experience, such as prayer, fasting, meditation, reading, etc.

I agree, I don't see any problem with using aids.  One aid that I occasionally use during meditation is essential oil.  I chose elemi oil, it is a very unique and distinct scent that smells like nothing else.  It actually comes from the Pili nut tree which is native to my mission in the Philippines.  And "elemi", in the ancient Aramaic tongue, means "as above so below". So, for me I feel that it in some way connects me back to a spiritually high point in my life in the mission field and has spiritual connotations in its name.  

Incense, for example, has historically been used for temple rituals by the Israelites, and is still used today by Catholics (as you well know).  Scents are powerful reminders and triggers for our memory.  The smell of a Christmas tree, for example, instantly invokes powerful emotions and memories.  It centers our hearts and minds to a sacred time, place and feeling of love.  That is what elemi oil does for me.  It helps prepare me fore new spiritual experiences.  I actually trained this reaction by opening the lid of the oil once I felt completely centered and at peace, and during spiritual high points during prayer/meditation.  Now, it instantly centers me and brings a calm and peace over my body, as I am emotionally transported to incredibly sacred and personal experiences in prayer/meditation.   As I have recently stated in another thread, one of the most powerful injunctions of all scripture is to "remember".  I, for one, can sometimes benefit from memory aids.  Certain sights, sounds, and scents can act as potent memory aids to center our minds and hearts in a more receptive states of being. 

[Calm]

Mfb, It seems to me the building of a cathedral is an act of faith to prepare for the Spirit.

Whether it is a community preparing or an individual, I don't really see a difference.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

On 7/6/2017 at 11:47 AM, mfbukowski said:

Ready to flip?  I just found this- haven't read it yet, but I knew that Peirce's play was related to Schiller's spiel from the context.  Derrida is the connection to Peirce, or vice versa- whatever.

And note who wrote the article.  Look him up if you don't know the article.  This is apparently not a secret in Mormon circles.

Walt Whitman?  Holy Hollyhocks Batman!!

http://sam-gill.com/PDF/schiller.wpd.pdf

OK just FYI the article writer is not the same person as THAT Sam Gill.

It is THIS Sam Gill.  http://sam-gill.com/

My bad. 

But THIS Sam Gill is a professor of the history of religion and has published extensively in this area- so that's good news, and he appears to live his beliefs

I have been aware of him for some time- anyone else?  What confused me is that the Sam Gill who is the DA of Salt Lake county comes from an "Indian" background and the author of the article has written extensively on "Indian" spirituality.

The problem is that the author is talking about Native Americans and the DA's background is East Indian, as in from India!

Hey I am not the first to make that mistake.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Mfb, It seems to me the building of a cathedral is an act of faith to prepare for the Spirit.

Whether it is a community preparing or an individual, I don't really see a difference.

I don't disagree- but surely you see the difference you are not appreciating the importance of the distinction perhaps.  Your providing an example shows that you understand the difference

The difference is whether or not the perception of beauty depends on the individual or the community- that is why I am distinguishing it.

The issue is whether or not the perception of beauty is conditioned by a community through culture or language, AND language is randomly generated, then experiences like beauty and spirituality in turn, are linguistically contingent making Nietzsche and others correct that we are little cultural robots who have been programmed to receive what we THINK are revelations by our language and culture.

In short, if all our thoughts are conditioned by language, we are no longer free agents.

It is the issue I was having with John Williams a few years ago where he was indicating that all thoughts were linguistic and I was maintaining that there IS a pre-linguistic state.

If we are programmed completely by the community, we are no longer free agents  This is the problem of the contingency of the self and the contingency of language.

Here is a pdf of the entire book of "Contingency Irony and Solidarity" by Rorty and this is exactly where I differ with Rorty. http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/rorty/rorty_CIS_full.pdf  This becomes the "death of man" problem which parallels the "death of God" idea.  I recommend reading both the entire chapter on the contingency of language AND the one on contingency of the self, but for a brief summary, go to the bottom of page 21 and read the last paragraph and the two paragraphs on page 22.  This presents the problem.

Here is my summary of the argument: If all language has randomly evolved by chance, all human thought has also randomly evolved including the belief in God.  By ridding the world of "reality" and making reality contingent on language- the point of my Rorty quote below, we make the world a production of man completely.  There is no such thing as "things as they are" because all we perceive is dependent on our perceptions.  Things as we know them are completely a human creation- hence my siggy below.

That is fine for a Mormon perhaps to believe since God for us is  a Human.  So if all reality is created by Humans and God is a human, everything is cool- except one thing

Agency.

Our every thought is not our own but is determined by our culture and we are not really "free agents" to become Ironists- those who recognize their contingency and yet rise above it- impossible- we are either contingent or not- AND/OR as I mentioned to Honorentheos- Nietzsche himself was not free to become an Ubermensch and we are not free to become rewarded through exaltation.

But that means we are not free agents unless we subscribe to some form of compatibilism.  Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

So did Christ just do what he was programmed to do by his heavenly culture as a robot, or did he actually merit his reward because he had agency?

THIS is why I insist on a combination of views- YES we are (partially) conditioned by language and YES we cannot DESCRIBE - verbally, or express- anything about the world "as it is" because truth exists in "spheres" - D&C 93,  Spencer Kimball, "Absolute Truth" https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng 

BUT there also exist the pre-linguistic "grok" experience- the sudden flash of beauty or intelligence flowing into our minds- which ARE NOT contingent on culture or language.

And we are free to see things "as they are" in revelations which surpass language and are "extrarational".  Not irrational, not rational, but extrarational 

So that is why I am so picky on this point.  John W couldn't get it either, but at the time I could not explain it better.  I do a little better now I think. 

That has been my problem in searching for a vocabulary that works for Mormons and I am getting closer.  I have been thinking this way for 40 years but telling the story to Mormons presents problems.

So yes, we can be culturally prepared for spirituality by the community and language but if one ONLY sees that, one misses taking deep within ourselves because we have not asked to receive it.  It is entertainment and crying at a movie- it is not revelation.

Hey I saw Old Yeller as a kid and cried my eyes out.  I felt it was wrong to cry at a movie but was not sure why.  Now I think I get it.  I make a point of NOT crying at movies now because I feel manipulated.  Yes I am weird.   And this is also the difference between "the spirit" and emotionality from a sentimental movie about Joseph Smith.

You can have a genuine revelation in such a situation but I believe it is rare.  If it sticks it was real but usually it lasts 5 minutes and we are our old nasty selves again.

But I am still flexible on the bigger picture.

Edited July 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

OK just FYI the article writer is not the same person as THAT Sam Gill.

It is THIS Sam Gill.  http://sam-gill.com/

My bad. 

But THIS Sam Gill is a professor of the history of religion and has published extensively in this area- so that's good news, and he appears to live his beliefs

I have been aware of him for some time- anyone else?  What confused me is that the Sam Gill who is the DA of Salt Lake county comes from an "Indian" background and the author of the article has written extensively on "Indian" spirituality.

The problem is that the author is talking about Native Americans and the DA's background is East Indian, as in from India!

Hey I am not the first to make that mistake.

 

That there lawyer I don't much care for is Sim Gill, son of Jagdish, a former client. So, yeah, definitely not Sam.

[Calm]

"If we are programmed completely by the community, we are no longer free agents  This is the problem of the contingency of the self and the contingency of language."

Simply because there is recognition of potential contribution to preparation for the Spirit by the community doesn't mean that is all the preparation that is needed, does it?  Plus there are also individual choices that bring an individual to how they participate in the community.

For example, paying tithing, being temple workers, etc...all those are individual choices that contribute to a community endeavor.

If the cathedral or temple is constructed as a response to the 'grok' of beauty, if in part architects seek out replicating the mountains and other places that touch our inner selves, why is it an issue?

Joseph went into a grove because he believed it would be helpful in preparation to open to the Spirit.  Whether nature builds our groves or we do, our awareness that such places open up our spirit does not remove the choice we have of putting ourselves in such places.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think I agree.  We have testimony meetings to hear others share their spiritual witnesses to open ourselves up to our own, we have Treks and other youth activity to do the same.  The missionary discussions are set up to 'set the mood'.  I can think of endless things we are told to do in order to "invite the spirit".

Perhaps we are defining "aid" differently...

Or perhaps we are doing it wrong.  

Or asking too much from 19 year olds.

Maybe we should teach meditation.  I think that is a more direct route.  It is NOT spiritual experience but it teaching how to PREPARE for spiritual experience instead of manipulating feelings.  How often do critics make fun of "burning in the bosom" as caused by a sentimental movie?  Maybe they have a point.  No the pioneers did not meditate but maybe we should learn. After all we are supposed to "ponderize" aren't we?  And buy a T shirt to go with it?

But I am a crotchety old man.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

"If we are programmed completely by the community, we are no longer free agents  This is the problem of the contingency of the self and the contingency of language."

Simply because there is recognition of potential contribution to preparation for the Spirit by the community doesn't mean that is all the preparation that is needed, does it?  Plus there are also individual choices that bring an individual to how they participate in the community.

For example, paying tithing, being temple workers, etc...all those are individual choices that contribute to a community endeavor.

If the cathedral or temple is constructed as a response to the 'grok' of beauty, if in part architects seek out replicating the mountains and other places that touch our inner selves, why is it an issue?

Joseph went into a grove because he believed it would be helpful in preparation to open to the Spirit.  Whether nature builds our groves or we do, our awareness that such places open up our spirit does not remove the choice we have of putting ourselves in such places.

I thought I said that but maybe it got buried.  

I am not sure what you mean actually.  I was not talking about contributing to a community I was talking whether the impulse came from the individual or the community

But as I said I am not firm on any of this at this point

The issue is whether or not the experience is conditioned by the community or if it comes from the individual- subjective vs objective.  I am not seeing why contribution to a community is even an issue, it is about the spiritual experience being not a contingent response to a community expectation

Quote

 

THIS is why I insist on a combination of views- YES we are (partially) conditioned by language and YES we cannot DESCRIBE - verbally, or express- anything about the world "as it is" because truth exists in "spheres" - D&C 93,  Spencer Kimball, "Absolute Truth" https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng 

BUT there also exist the pre-linguistic "grok" experience- the sudden flash of beauty or intelligence flowing into our minds- which ARE NOT contingent on culture or language......

So yes, we can be culturally prepared for spirituality by the community and language but if one ONLY sees that, one misses taking deep within ourselves because we have not asked to receive it.  It is entertainment and crying at a movie- it is not revelation.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

That there lawyer I don't much care for is Sim Gill, son of Jagdish, a former client. So, yeah, definitely not Sam.

I figured you would know him and that is why I wanted to correct it

[deli_llama]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe we should teach meditation.  I think that is a more direct route.  It is NOT spiritual experience but it teaching how to PREPARE for spiritual experience instead of manipulating feelings.  

Would hit the rep point arrow over and over, like 11 times or so, for that. 

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, deli_llama said:

Would hit the rep point arrow over and over, like 11 times or so, for that. 

It will happen but its years away 

[mfbukowski]

Peyote works too.

Who can clearly explain the difference?

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Peyote works too.

Who can clearly explain the difference?

 

Back in my seeking days, I had three opportunities to "sit up" (the term for participate) in a Native American Church peyote ceremony. It definitely felt like a spiritual experience to me. And it certainly wasn't like any recreational use of psychedelics that I had had. And the Native participants were clearly sincere and faithful.

So yeah, who can explain the difference?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Back in my seeking days, I had three opportunities to "sit up" (the term for participate) in a Native American Church peyote ceremony. It definitely felt like a spiritual experience to me. And it certainly wasn't like any recreational use of psychedelics that I had had. And the Native participants were clearly sincere and faithful.

So yeah, who can explain the difference?

That is exactly the problem and why "justifying hallucinations" becomes an issue, and for me why Pragmatism works for these problems philosophically

No one can be absolutely positive in an objective scientific way if Jesus died for or sins, or for some, whether or not he even existed I suppose.  But the bottom line is that the BELIEF in spiritual experience AND what it manifests has changed billions of lives for the better (I would argue)

But it is essential to approach it pragmatically in my opinion

Objection: "But if Jesus never existed then the atonement is not real!"  But the speaker himself cannot tell scientifically if it is "real" or if anything else is "real" for that matter until you have experimented on the principle or even the illusion.  You don't know a mirage is "not real" until you have walked or driven far enough to see "what it is" and you cannot tell if a religion is "real" until you have followed the path.  The belief itself is it's own reward or it is not, it is for you to decide.

But amazingly that is a central belief of Mormonism as found in Alma 32, and is one reason I am a Mormon today because the Mormon philosophy matches THAT philosophy of experimenting on the effects of belief.

Quote

 

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

 

I saw that and it matched what I believed already, perfectly.  No metaphysics, no rigid doctrine- just "try it, you'll like it!"

And this is where all the critics go wrong who say we are into "blind obedience".  It is just blatantly not true.  It is not true when they say "Freedom is not Mormonism"- that is absurd and this scripture shows precisely why.   I know most here are familiar with that quote but I am not sure if you are.

I too had such experiences as you describe in my youth and this is how this has become a central question for me- the mind/body "problem".  But this view in Alma transcends all of that- if it works and brings you to Christ and is sweet to you, it is of God.

This argument that I have been making about linguistic or community aids is a subtle one I guess that I have not expressed well because I refuse to retype the three paragraphs which summarize the need for my point I am trying to make, in which Rorty takes the other side.

But I am not going to make people drink- I can only lead them to water.  If you don't see Rorty's point- then too bad, you will not understand my the need for there to be pre-linguistic experience

All of theism hinges on that distinction that no one will read.  I will post it again- it will take 5 minutes to read

See the quote immediately below for the reference to Rorty's point, which I am opposing.

Edited July 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here is a pdf of the entire book of "Contingency Irony and Solidarity" by Rorty and this is exactly where I differ with Rorty. http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/rorty/rorty_CIS_full.pdf  This becomes the "death of man" problem which parallels the "death of God" idea.  I recommend reading both the entire chapter on the contingency of language AND the one on contingency of the self, but for a brief summary, go to the bottom of page 21 and read the last paragraph and the two paragraphs on page 22.  This presents the problem.

This is the quote I referred to above.  If you don't understand my vehemence on this point read it.  Otherwise fergetaboutit.

If we are using culture to achieve "the spirit" we are "worshipping the corpses of our ancestor's metaphors"

And that would include their music, their architecture, their words and beliefs, untested through Alma 32

Either you know for yourself or you are living on borrowed light.  Maybe THAT phrase will communicate to those who don't see why music is wonderful but in the final analysis, a crutch.

It is the composer's testimony, not yours.  It is the architect's testimony, not yours.  Art communicates, of course- it is a LANGUAGE no less than the Bible is written in language.

Do we expect the Bible to be "translated correctly"?  Taking music literally is no better than taking words literally.   Both were composed by someone else and are not YOUR revelation but theirs.

They are artistically the "philosophies of men mingled with their revelations" and not the world "as it is", they are feeble human language and theology as opposed to direct experience.

That is not the only true AND LIVING church- and yes of course I love the LDS hymns- but we must get our own testimonies of what they say just like anything else!  They are especially great for "recalling" testimonies we have had through the years, but not as a substitute for the real thing.  They are like old friends, wonderful to re-visit but ultimately we cannot survive on the testimony of old friends.

- The Grump.

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

MFB, I'm thinking that what Cal is talking about is worth pursuing, though it is not a part of what you are talking about.  A philosophically sound basis for ritual and church membership, as well as the related issue of holy marriage (which from the Mormon perspective could be a big deal) is something worth pursuing.

Imagine an expansion of the "world out there/world in here" analysis applied to groups instead of individuals, including marriage partners. What might that look like?

Please note that although I have to agree with you on the main issue being treated, Cal's issue is very intriguing, and I'm not sure how to go about it.  Certainly Nietzsche doesn't appear, at least at first blush, to be helpful.  Rorty?  Maybe.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

MFB, I'm thinking that what Cal is talking about is worth pursuing, though it is not a part of what you are talking about.  A philosophically sound basis for ritual and church membership, as well as the related issue of holy marriage (which from the Mormon perspective could be a big deal) is something worth pursuing.

Imagine an expansion of the "world out there/world in here" analysis applied to groups instead of individuals, including marriage partners. What might that look like?

Please note that although I have to agree with you on the main issue being treated, Cal's issue is very intriguing, and I'm not sure how to go about it.  Certainly Nietzsche doesn't appear, at least at first blush, to be helpful.  Rorty?  Maybe.

Yes it appears I have lost everybody.

Maybe you could explain to me what Cal is pursuing because usually what she says is crystal clear to me, and her last comment left me confused about what she was talking about as I suppose mine did as well

I do believe strongly that there IS a philosophically sound basis for ritual and church membership as orthopraxis within the community.  I support the authority of the priesthood of course as well

There is clearly to me a sound basis as well for eternal marriage and were there not I would not be LDS.

I will go back to Mormon jargon and just say that all I am saying is that you must have your own testimonies of each principle of the gospel and cannot survive on borrowed light

I don't know why that is so confusing to say philosophically why that is so important but I guess it is confusing to some 

Mormon culture is great and all that but at some time we need to break from the testimonies of our ancestors and get our own.

And this is a controversial idea?

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/7/2017 at 6:10 PM, Calm said:

"If we are programmed completely by the community, we are no longer free agents  This is the problem of the contingency of the self and the contingency of language."

Simply because there is recognition of potential contribution to preparation for the Spirit by the community doesn't mean that is all the preparation that is needed, does it?  Plus there are also individual choices that bring an individual to how they participate in the community.

Of course it doesn't mean that is all that is needed- individual preparation is also needed and this is what I have been saying and why I suggested we teach meditation as a preparation instead of watching sentimental movies.   Yes there are individual choices and those are the ones I think are the best.

Quote

 

For example, paying tithing, being temple workers, etc...all those are individual choices that contribute to a community endeavor.

 

Yep, did you think I said that we should not contribute to community efforts?   Where did I say that- I will correct it immediately if you give me the reference

Quote

If the cathedral or temple is constructed as a response to the 'grok' of beauty, if in part architects seek out replicating the mountains and other places that touch our inner selves, why is it an issue?

I would spend half my life in art museums if I could, there is no issue there.

But art is not the examination of things as they are.   "Ceci ne pas une pipe"  Art is an interpretation of experience and communicate the artists view of the world not YOUR PERSONAL view of the world.  Someone else's Art is a brick in the wall YOU are creating - the brick is not YOUR creation but your placement of the brick IS your creation as in a mosaic of bricks.  And that is what is YOUR world organized from bricks that previously were not organized as only you can organize them

Warhol was making that point by painting soup cans.  He was intentionally making invisible art to make a point about what art is and what it is not.

Quote

Joseph went into a grove because he believed it would be helpful in preparation to open to the Spirit.  Whether nature builds our groves or we do, our awareness that such places open up our spirit does not remove the choice we have of putting ourselves in such places.

I do not comprehend this.  Of course you are right and I am not sure why you even said this.  It is like saying we have to breathe to live.  How could I disagree with this?

Edited July 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes it appears I have lost everybody.

Maybe you could explain to me what Cal is pursuing because usually what she says is crystal clear to me, and her last comment left me confused about what she was talking about as I suppose mine did as well

I do believe strongly that there IS a philosophically sound basis for ritual and church membership as orthopraxis within the community.  I support the authority of the priesthood of course as well

There is clearly to me a sound basis as well for eternal marriage and were there not I would not be LDS.

I will go back to Mormon jargon and just say that all I am saying is that you must have your own testimonies of each principle of the gospel and cannot survive on borrowed light

I don't know why that is so confusing to say philosophically why that is so important but I guess it is confusing to some 

Mormon culture is great and all that but at some time we need to break from the testimonies of our ancestors and get our own.

And this is a controversial idea?

 

 

You haven't lost me: the question is how to account for the communal religious experience. What we've been discussing had to do with each individual's journey jenseits. Yet we know that our vocabulary for worship includes communal ritual activity: the endowment ritual; the sacrament; the Hosanna Shout; etc.

These questions are not inapposite to this here thread, though they are inapposite to our conversation, that's been bridging several threads.

She's wondering about that separate question. I like her question and haven't given it much thought from a philosophical perspective. Outside, especially among the Protestants, there's a fully formed movement for religion without community. Community in religion is a big deal with us. So is priesthood. So are the communal endeavors we undertake.

There's a power in these communal activities. How do we explain it? How do we do so in a satisfying manner?

[USU78]

MFB: something from the BoM. It wasn't just Moroni who complained about how intent is lost when translating revelatory TRVTH into written words. Nephi laments not being able to use Angelspeak to convey the message fully. And we know how JSJr and his associates sought the True Adamic language in order to convey TRVTH by words that weren't necessarily inadequate, approximate and weak.

Even G-d recognizes words' inadequacy when He tells Oliver He'll put TRVTH into his mind and his heart. 

We know what we know jenseits von language.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is exactly the problem and why "justifying hallucinations" becomes an issue, and for me why Pragmatism works for these problems philosophically

No one can be absolutely positive in an objective scientific way if Jesus died for or sins, or for some, whether or not he even existed I suppose.  But the bottom line is that the BELIEF in spiritual experience AND what it manifests has changed billions of lives for the better (I would argue)

But it is essential to approach it pragmatically in my opinion

Objection: "But if Jesus never existed then the atonement is not real!"  But the speaker himself cannot tell scientifically if it is "real" or if anything else is "real" for that matter until you have experimented on the principle or even the illusion.  You don't know a mirage is "not real" until you have walked or driven far enough to see "what it is" and you cannot tell if a religion is "real" until you have followed the path.  The belief itself is it's own reward or it is not, it is for you to decide.

But amazingly that is a central belief of Mormonism as found in Alma 32, and is one reason I am a Mormon today because the Mormon philosophy matches THAT philosophy of experimenting on the effects of belief.

I saw that and it matched what I believed already, perfectly.  No metaphysics, no rigid doctrine- just "try it, you'll like it!"

And this is where all the critics go wrong who say we are into "blind obedience".  It is just blatantly not true.  It is not true when they say "Freedom is not Mormonism"- that is absurd and this scripture shows precisely why.   I know most here are familiar with that quote but I am not sure if you are.

I too had such experiences as you describe in my youth and this is how this has become a central question for me- the mind/body "problem".  But this view in Alma transcends all of that- if it works and brings you to Christ and is sweet to you, it is of God.

This argument that I have been making about linguistic or community aids is a subtle one I guess that I have not expressed well because I refuse to retype the three paragraphs which summarize the need for my point I am trying to make, in which Rorty takes the other side.

But I am not going to make people drink- I can only lead them to water.  If you don't see Rorty's point- then too bad, you will not understand my the need for there to be pre-linguistic experience

All of theism hinges on that distinction that no one will read.  I will post it again- it will take 5 minutes to read

See the quote immediately below for the reference to Rorty's point, which I am opposing.

Alma 32 is indeed a call to experiment and see if it's good. But the language is so meandering and messy, it's always bothered me. Here's my run at cleaning it up:

 

As I said, faith is not a perfect knowledge. You can't be sure I'm telling you the truth at this moment, any more than faith is perfect knowledge.

But, if you wake up and arouse your faculties and exercise just a little faith (or even just want to believe), let this desire work in you, until you can at least believe me a little.

Let's compare the word of God to a seed. If you let that seed be planted in your heart, and assuming it's a good seed and you don't cast it out by your unbelief, it will begin to grow. If it grows and begins to enlarge your soul and enlighten you, that means the seed is good

This will increase your faith, but of course it's not perfect knowledge.

But as the seed grows, then you should conclude that it's good, because it is growing. Wouldn't this strengthen your faith? Yes! It's good because it grows.

So are you sure that this is a good seed? Yes, if it grows up into something good, it was a good seed.

If the seed grows, it's good. If not, it's bad. You can throw bad seeds away.

When you have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, grows and sprouts, you'll know that the seed is good.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, USU78 said:

MFB: something from the BoM. It wasn't just Moroni who complained about how intent is lost when translating revelatory TRVTH into written words. Nephi laments not being able to use Angelspeak to convey the message fully. And we know how JSJr and his associates sought the True Adamic language in order to convey TRVTH by words that weren't necessarily inadequate, approximate and weak.

Even G-d recognizes words' inadequacy when He tells Oliver He'll put TRVTH into his mind and his heart. 

We know what we know jenseits von language.

Not to mention the story of Babel, which figuratively confirms, in my opinion the idea that "Adamic" is direct experience "beyond" language,ie  jenseits von language.  It is walking face to face in the Garden with God until the fall and then the confounding of human language, and the inability to speak more about God because the "vocabulary" to do so - to capture direct experience- in spirit communication - is gone EXCEPT when we receive wordless revelation, the pre-linguistic grokking of beauty say, as we have been speaking about it.

Remember God "calls" worlds into existence.  By the Word was everything created- that was the Person named Messenger or Word (Christ) who did the work.  One of a zillion confirmations of this is in Abraham - and most of the Book of Abraham in this one verse as a microcosm,  Abraham 4:5

Quote

 

5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called night; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.

 

So here is manifested the social creation of things "as they are"- and the creation of language which is later "confounded" in Babel- they did it in "God speech" or "Adamic" which means spirit to spirit communication. It's not necessarily the first time a planet  or this planet rotated- it's the first time it was "called" something in a language- here, in the story, the Adamic language presumably. 

 I see this as metaphor but if anyone wants to see it literally that is certainly possible.  It's up to you.  What "really happened" is unknowable and irrelevant.    All things are created socially in language- here in God language which means spirit to spirit communication, or human language which is the squiggles on the page which are ambiguous and sloppy

After the fall and Babel- metaphoric or not-  Rorty becomes right and this telestial world is indeed divorced from God and linguistic representation of "things as they are"- ding an sich.  For those who live telestially this is all there is.

The reason Rorty is right is that he describes our telestial world, just as Nietzsche describes the death of God due to our telestial world and sectarian philosophy.  More correctly that god never lived so he never died, he just became irrelevant as we see now especially

The reason Rorty is wrong is that all he understands IS the telestial world.   He does not understand that pre-linguistic communication- spirit to spirit- still exists for those who understand it, as our community does, presumably for those at least who strive to live the Celestial law.

The closer we get to living the Celestial law, the closer and easier spirit to spirit communication becomes.  

So that is how God puts TRVTH - direct non verbal spirit to spirit communication- into Oliver's heart and mind.  Things as they are- ding an sich- are communicated non-verbally, as when your wife gives you "that look" in a social situation which speaks volumes.   Instant unity of the minds!  Others may notice the "look" or wink or whatever- but they have no clue what is being communicated.

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

You haven't lost me: the question is how to account for the communal religious experience. What we've been discussing had to do with each individual's journey jenseits. Yet we know that our vocabulary for worship includes communal ritual activity: the endowment ritual; the sacrament; the Hosanna Shout; etc.

These questions are not inapposite to this here thread, though they are inapposite to our conversation, that's been bridging several threads.

She's wondering about that separate question. I like her question and haven't given it much thought from a philosophical perspective. Outside, especially among the Protestants, there's a fully formed movement for religion without community. Community in religion is a big deal with us. So is priesthood. So are the communal endeavors we undertake.

There's a power in these communal activities. How do we explain it? How do we do so in a satisfying manner?

Everything is created socially, the story goes, by the Council of the Gods and in a Rorty telestial sense, in human states of mind.

So both Rorty and Mormonism agree that reality as we know it is created socially through language- Mormons say it was through God's language calling worlds into existence, and Rorty says it was by humans defining worlds into existence.

You cannot get outside of human states of mind communally in science etc.   Science communally creates the world as humans know it- I can tell you nothing about nuclear fusion OR fission because I am not even a novice member of the Physics Club of Scientists but within their community they have the "truth" - not the "TRVTH" of statements about physics. The worldwide community of physicists defines truth and error within physics and they do it using their tools- math and observation - and communicating that to their culture.

So to me, black holes might sound no more "real" than witchcraft, but I take them to be telling the truth that to them, it is "real".   If a physicist doesn't believe in black holes he is drummed out of the club and loses credibility.

In our community Mormonism is "real" as defined by our community.  In this community if you don't believe God is a human Father who heads a family of the Son and Holy Ghost, Heavenly Mother and who knows who else, you are drummed out of the club and lose credibility as do all the critics hereabouts.

Physicists want to see repeatable evidence that all can see in their club, we want to see reportedly repeatable evidence that we only see subjectively to be in our club.

We get up in front of the club monthly if we like, and say we have felt something good due to Mormonism, and everyone agrees that they too have felt something good from Mormonism and that is our "verification"

And so we have two different language games and two different descriptions of "truth" within our communities, neither of which is in conflict with the other.  Physicists are talking about something different in their community than we are talking about in our community.

Our community agrees on subjective evidence of revelation and physicists agree on objective evidence they have observed (each subjectively but that is another issue-)

Our community is about agreeing on what gives meaning to our lives and the physics community is agreeing about what makes physical theories work.

No conflict

So what's the problem again?

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not to mention the story of Babel, which figuratively confirms, in my opinion the idea that "Adamic" is direct experience "beyond" language,ie  jenseits von language.  It is walking face to face in the Garden with God until the fall and then the confounding of human language, and the inability to speak more about God because the "vocabulary" to do so - to capture direct experience- in spirit communication - is gone EXCEPT when we receive wordless revelation, the pre-linguistic grokking of beauty say, as we have been speaking about it.

Remember God "calls" worlds into existence.  By the Word was everything created- that was the Person named Messenger or Word (Christ) who did the work.  One of a zillion confirmations of this is in Abraham - and most of the Book of Abraham in this one verse as a microcosm,  Abraham 4:5

So here is manifested the social creation of things "as they are"- and the creation of language which is later "confounded" in Babel- they did it in "God speech" or "Adamic" which means spirit to spirit communication. It's not necessarily the first time a planet  or this planet rotated- it's the first time it was "called" something in a language- here, in the story, the Adamic language presumably. 

 I see this as metaphor but if anyone wants to see it literally that is certainly possible.  It's up to you.  What "really happened" is unknowable and irrelevant.    All things are created socially in language- here in God language which means spirit to spirit communication, or human language which is the squiggles on the page which are ambiguous and sloppy

After the fall and Babel- metaphoric or not-  Rorty becomes right and this telestial world is indeed divorced from God and linguistic representation of "things as they are"- ding an sich.  For those who live telestially this is all there is.

The reason Rorty is right is that he describes our telestial world, just as Nietzsche describes the death of God due to our telestial world and sectarian philosophy.  More correctly that god never lived so he never died, he just became irrelevant as we see now especially

The reason Rorty is wrong is that all he understands IS the telestial world.   He does not understand that pre-linguistic communication- spirit to spirit- still exists for those who understand it, as our community does, presumably for those at least who strive to live the Celestial law.

The closer we get to living the Celestial law, the closer and easier spirit to spirit communication becomes.  

So that is how God puts TRVTH - direct non verbal spirit to spirit communication- into Oliver's heart and mind.  Things as they are- ding an sich- are communicated non-verbally, as when your wife gives you "that look" in a social situation which speaks volumes.   Instant unity of the minds!  Others may notice the "look" or wink or whatever- but they have no clue what is being communicated.

Please forgive a personal experience. When I first saw my first wife in her casket I had a distinct and unambiguous feeling that her empty left hand was wrong, and that I needed to do something about it. I took off my wedding ring and put it on her ring finger.

You see, she died on Thursday, but on the previous Sunday, mother's day, I arranged for our three children to all be home. She took the opportunity to divide up her jewelry between the two girls.

Later I put a name to my experience and my actions: a married woman should have her husband's ring. 

My experience and my compulsion to act were prior to me naming them.

I buried her as she lived: a married woman.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Please forgive a personal experience. When I first saw my first wife in her casket I had a distinct and unambiguous feeling that her empty left hand was wrong, and that I needed to do something about it. I took off my wedding ring and put it on her ring finger.

You see, she died on Thursday, but on the previous Sunday, mother's day, I arranged for our three children to all be home. She took the opportunity to divide up her jewelry between the two girls.

Later I put a name to my experience and my actions: a married woman should have her husband's ring. 

My experience and my compulsion to act were prior to me naming them.

I buried her as she lived: a married woman.

Oh my gosh, what a wonderful story

I cannot imagine how you could have handled it- I hope I never have to.

We have covenanted to die together in a car crash.

That's why I always make her drive.