Objective Truth, Subjective Truth and Opinions

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

Regarding the quote from Oprah in the OP, it should be remembered that Oprah strongly promoted the pop-philosophy fad of "The Secret" back in the day:

 

While I am strongly in favor of pre-visualization, goal setting, hard work and gratitude, and that our attitudes and choices can have a profound effect on our lives*, I think believers in "The Secret" stretch that belief into dimensions that aren't quite believable.

So we shouldn't take it as a given that people who talk about "your truth" or "my truth" also believe in an objective reality above and apart from their experience.  Because I'm not sure that's the case, no matter how crazy it would seem.

 

*Many principles of "The Secret" are similar to Covey's 7 Habits, such as "Be Proactive" and "Begin with the End in Mind."

Reminds me of the song that repeats over and over "constant cravings always win".  Gosh I thought we were supposed to get away from addictions.

It's not that the Universe Responds but that when we are obsessed with something, golly gee we tend to do that and think about it constantly.   Nothing magical here.

And yes I saw the fine print too.  OCD takes many forms. 

 

[Brother Bear]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I ran across this on YouTube. 

It’s a common-sense exposition on why Oprah’s notion of “your truth” is bogus:

 

This just seems like a petty disagreement over a choice of words used to describe one’s beliefs. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Brother Bear

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Although Oprah may not fully realize the implications of what she’s suggesting when she speaks of people in her camp standing up in defense for their version of the truth (“your truth”) I believe the idea she’s espousing is that there is no ultimate immutable truth (the eternal truth of God) and therefore truth is relative thing that can shift like the wind to fit present societal circumstances and exigencies. Because in her worldview truth is a purely human perception (opinion), many dangers lurk because fallen human beings stand in the place of God. After the rejection of the eternal God and his holy word, and the enthronement of fallen man in place of God, it’s not a far leap to get in the habit of cynically inventing “truth” (lying) to undermine one’s enemies and gain the upper hand. After all, if the is no eternal Jugde of the quick and the dead, what does it matter if one manipulates facts for their gain because there is no ultimate punishment for inventing lies as truth to worry about.

First, Oprah is a Christian.  She does not reject "the eternal God and his holy word".  

Second, everybody has their own perspective of the truth, aka "your truth" and "my truth".   Man's version of truth is only relative to God's version of THE TRUTH.  Until we can stand in the place of God, our truth will always be relative to His truth.

You see, it is not impossible to embrace both the concepts of absolute truth (God's truth), and relative truth (man's truth - "my truth" and "your truth").  The point of life is to get my truth and your truth to align with God's truth.  That will not be complete and whole until we are like him and can see as he sees and know as he knows.  Until then, our perspective and perception of truth will evolve for the better or worse.  It will either be progressive or regressive in nature, depending on where our spiritual eyes are fixed.  To proclaim that one has absolute certainty of absolute truth is to "stand in the place of God".  It is both misguided and dangerous.  It is evidence of a stiff neck and hard heart, and will prevent one from further light and knowledge that can only be obtained and understood through open ears and a malleable heart. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

I guess I don’t see the difference between what you call “subjective truth” and what Oprah calls “your truth.” It seems you’re both just talking about a system of beliefs. The Truth has nothing to do with it. As your own definition of objective truth suggests, the Truth is outside of the comprehension of any sentient being since any thought you could possibly have is an idea of a sentient being. You cannot have non-personal thoughts or experiences. 

Perhaps you missed my post wherein I said I don't hold with the notion of "subjective truth".

There is truth and there is opinion. As I've seen it defined, so-called "subjective truth" is merely another name for opinion.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

This just seems like a petty disagreement over a choice of words used to describe one’s beliefs. 

Renaming opinion as "your truth" or "my truth" or "subjective truth" strikes me as doublespeak.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Although Oprah may not fully realize the implications of what she’s suggesting when she speaks of people in her camp standing up in defense for their version of the truth (“your truth”) I believe the idea she’s espousing is that there is no ultimate immutable truth (the eternal truth of God) and therefore truth is relative thing that can shift like the wind to fit present societal circumstances and exigencies. Because in her worldview truth is a purely human perception (opinion), many dangers lurk because fallen human beings stand in the place of God. After the rejection of the eternal God and his holy word, and the enthronement of fallen man in place of God, it’s not a far leap to get in the habit of cynically inventing “truth” (lying) to undermine one’s enemies and gain the upper hand. After all, if the is no eternal Jugde of the quick and the dead, what does it matter if one manipulates facts for their gain because there is no ultimate punishment for inventing lies as truth to worry about.

Virtual rep point.

 

[Brother Bear]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps you missed my post wherein I said I don't hold with the notion of "subjective truth".

There is truth and there is opinion. As I've seen it defined, so-called "subjective truth" is merely another name for opinion.

I think my post that you are quoting was in response to smac. I hadn’t read your responses yet. Sorry for the confusion.

[Brother Bear]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Renaming opinion as "your truth" or "my truth" or "subjective truth" strikes me as doublespeak.

I think “subjective truth” and “my truth” are kind of silly terms. I prefer to just call them beliefs. I think “my truth” better translates to “my core values” or “my core beliefs.” As smac hinted, his “subjective truths” appear to include some of his most highly prized beliefs.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Brother Bear

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

I think “subjective truth” and “my truth” are kind of silly terms. I prefer to just call them beliefs. I think “my truth” better translates to “my core values” or “my core beliefs.” As smac hinted, his “subjective truths” appear to include some of his most highly prized beliefs.

I can go along with this -- except that I don't like the phrase "subjective truths." Core values or core beliefs may very well equate to truth, but as I said earlier, from an outside perspective, they are only opinion if one doesn't share them.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

First, Oprah is a Christian.  She does not reject "the eternal God and his holy word".  

Second, everybody has their own perspective of the truth, aka "your truth" and "my truth".   Man's version of truth is only relative to God's version of THE TRUTH.  Until we can stand in the place of God, our truth will always be relative to His truth.

You see, it is not impossible to embrace both the concepts of absolute truth (God's truth), and relative truth (man's truth - "my truth" and "your truth").  The point of life is to get my truth and your truth to align with God's truth.  That will not be complete and whole until we are like him and can see as he sees and know as he knows.  Until then, our perspective and perception of truth will evolve for the better or worse.  It will either be progressive or regressive in nature, depending on where our spiritual eyes are fixed.  To proclaim that one has absolute certainty of absolute truth is to "stand in the place of God".  It is both misguided and dangerous.  It is evidence of a stiff neck and hard heart, and will prevent one from further light and knowledge that can only be obtained and understood through open ears and a malleable heart. 

Winfrey is a devotee of New Age religion who endorses the religions philosophy of Eckhart Tolle. The focus of Tolle’s path to salvation is on a so-called “inward Christ” who can lead humanity toward spiritual enlightenment and joy without the need for an outward atoning Christ whose suffering, death and resurrection is believed by the Latter-day Saints to be the only means to obtain salvation. Tolle’s philosophy is basically Buddhism tailored for western ears and sensibilities. And as you surely know, Buddhism is a religion without a God.

Please explain to me how the following words of perfect assurance spoken by the Prophet Nephi comply with your above words of warning?

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 31)

Edited January 16, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

This just seems like a petty disagreement over a choice of words used to describe one’s beliefs. 

Yep.

All she is doing is stating the issue.  Unfortunately the whole issue IS "was it rape or not" to use her examples. Absent a trier of "fact",  "Reality" is never quite so clear as fundamentalists wish it was.  It's sad because I uphold her values and agree with her morals completely but the argument she presents is not even really an argument, it is just a strident and vigorous statement of what she thinks, in other words "her truth", or in other words, she is just underlinig the problem without any solutions offered.

This is why we need clear statements of these issues as theists and Christians.  Unfortunately the world right now has relativistic philosophy behind it when we can use it just as well in our favor.  Our truth is Mormonism- and there is nothing much more anyone can complain about it if they espouse that we all have our own "truth"

They are trying to throw cannon balls out of canoes to hit other canoes.  Tricky business without a stable base.  Oprah my dear, that works just as well for conservatives as liberals, and the net difference on the truth scale is zero.

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The focus of Tolle’s path to salvation is on a so-called “inward Christ” who can lead humanity toward spiritual enlightenment and joy without the need for an outward atoning Christ whose suffering, death and resurrection is believed by the Latter-day Saints to be the only means to obtain salvation.

Alma 32

Quote

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.

Unfortunately baring having a time machine available to go back and witness the Resurrection, the distinction is pretty slight.  

Not to mention that probably hundreds of eye-witnesses of the crucifixion passed by only thinking about the daily walk to the marketplace and how much flour they needed to buy.  Another day at the office.

So what is more important- being an eyewitness or planting the seed and having it swell into spiritual enlightenment?  The inward testimony and dedication we feel internally or historical alleged "facts" which are never ever totally accurate, since they are always flawed by human perceptions, or facts one can never trust to be "true"

How many billions of Christians received spiritual enlightenment who were not witnesses over the last 2000 years as opposed to the few hundred who possibly were witnesses? 

Quote

 

Please explain to me how the following words of perfect assurance spoken by the Prophet Nephi comply with your above words of warning?

 

And how did Nephi himself know?

Was he in Jerusalem?

Edited January 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps you missed my post wherein I said I don't hold with the notion of "subjective truth".

There is truth and there is opinion. As I've seen it defined, so-called "subjective truth" is merely another name for opinion.

And if one does not trust your subjective testimony how is one supposed to know truth?

How do you show that yours is truth and his is testimony?   You might be right but lose an investigator when there are other ways of presenting the issues.  Of course you could insist that you are right and he is wrong, but I don't think that will help much.

THAT is the issue here in my opinion.   It is nice to know the truth, but we are a missionary church and dealing with this issue is now of prime importance.   If we do not have the words to handle the obvious objections we receive daily, we will get nowhere.

That is why people think we are strident, dogmatic, and arrogant.  Perhaps we do not care what they think?

As you know in your profession the words you use to describe the situation are of utmost importance.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not your truth? 

No, I don't use that terminology or paradigm if I understand Oprah sufficiently from what has been reported (I have never cared for the way she presents stuff, so not interested enough to view it myself).

I think the MRC individual (can't remember her name) inflates certain occurrences inappropriately by using them as examples.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Calm

[USU78]

7 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Although Oprah may not fully realize the implications of what she’s suggesting when she speaks of people in her camp standing up in defense for their version of the truth (“your truth”) I believe the idea she’s espousing is that there is no ultimate immutable truth (the eternal truth of God) and therefore truth is relative thing that can shift like the wind to fit present societal circumstances and exigencies. Because in her worldview truth is a purely human perception (opinion), many dangers lurk because fallen human beings stand in the place of God. After the rejection of the eternal God and his holy word, and the enthronement of fallen man in place of God, it’s not a far leap to get in the habit of cynically inventing “truth” (lying) to undermine one’s enemies and gain the upper hand. After all, if the is no eternal Jugde of the quick and the dead, what does it matter if one manipulates facts for their gain because there is no ultimate punishment for inventing lies as truth to worry about.

Here's another virtual prop.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

 And as you surely know, Buddhism is a religion without a God.

No, I don't know that. Quite frankly, I don't believe it, and neither should you.  I see God clearly in the teachings of Buddhism.  I am a better Christian because of my adherance to Buddhist principles which enhance my prayers and presence with God.  Those righteous Buddhists who listen to "the still small voice" will recognize Christ's voice at his coming.  They already know Him, but from a different perspective. 

I put the words "still small voice" in quotes, because, believe it or not, that is the phrase they use in Buddhism to describe intuition, a.k.a the light of Christ.  How uncanny! 

If I didn't tell you that the following words were from a Buddhist website, you probably would have thought they were Mormon: 

Quote

 

But when my friend talked about intuition, I began to revisit the "listening" aspect of practice. Gasp, I learned I'm not the greatest listener! I recognized that cultivation of that "still small voice" requires the willingness to just sit and be with the canvas in the same way you would be with a friend who is telling you some story from their life, something important and arresting. If the voice is still and small, it requires quiet and attention, right? Otherwise in my busyness, my need to get on with things, get something done, exert my wants, I drown out that voice.

I think we have to be willing, willing to do what needs to be done to hear this voice, willing to clear a space for it, willing to be available...and ultimately, willing to receive. I think of myself as this little short wave radio set, just tuning in to see what's out there. And then of course having faith once I find a channel that's not all static, to believe that this is a channel that I am supposed to be listening to.

 

Compare those words to one of my favorite videos from President Faust (complete with the tuning of the radio comparison and all!)

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2010-08-16-voice-of-the-spirit?lang=eng

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Please explain to me how the following words of perfect assurance spoken by the Prophet Nephi comply with your above words of warning?

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 31)

Nephi, no doubt, had powerful assurances of faith.  But enough Nephi relied on faith. 

 

[Bobbieaware]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Alma 32

Unfortunately baring having a time machine available to go back and witness the Resurrection, the distinction is pretty slight.  

Not to mention that probably hundreds of eye-witnesses of the crucifixion passed by only thinking about the daily walk to the marketplace and how much flour they needed to buy.  Another day at the office.

So what is more important- being an eyewitness or planting the seed and having it swell into spiritual enlightenment?  The inward testimony and dedication we feel internally or historical alleged "facts" which are never ever totally accurate, since they are always flawed by human perceptions, or facts one can never trust to be "true"

How many billions of Christians received spiritual enlightenment who were not witnesses over the last 2000 years as opposed to the few hundred who possibly were witnesses? 

 

I see real merit in virtually all of your posts, as I do in this one. But why can’t we just be honest with ourselves as Latter-day Saints and acknowledge that, in this particular instance, the seed Alma is speaking of a true seed of spiritual witness sent from God that’s meant to be planted in the hearts of investigators of the true Church through the instrumentality of duly-authorized ministers of the true Church and gospel? Was not Alma clearly an authorized and empowered minister of the true gospel? Is not the seed of which Alma spoke the seed of true spiritual witness from God that has the potential to sprout and grow to become a full-blown testimony,?  And were not the Zoramites people who were investigating the truth claims of the true religion? Yes, Yes, Yes.  

So why do we think it’s acceptable to go so far afield from the obvious intended meaning of Alma 32 and imagine that it somehow authenticity applies to someone who is taking a liking to a religion that rejects the necessity of the atoning Christ and even goes so far as to reject the existence of God altogether? It seems that in this politically correct age even members of the true Church feel compelled to acknowledge that every religion and every religious claim is equally valid.

 

[Bobbieaware]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, I don't know that. Quite frankly, I don't believe it, and neither should you.  I see God clearly in the teachings of Buddhism.  I am a better Christian because of my adherance to Buddhist principles which enhance my prayers and presence with God.  Those righteous Buddhists who listen to "the still small voice" will recognize Christ's voice at his coming.  They already know Him, but from a different perspective. 

I put the words "still small voice" in quotes, because, believe it or not, that is the phrase they use in Buddhism to describe intuition, a.k.a the light of Christ.  How uncanny! 

If I didn't tell you that the following words were from a Buddhist website, you probably would have thought they were Mormon: 

Compare those words to one of my favorite videos from President Faust (complete with the tuning of the radio comparison and all!)

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2010-08-16-voice-of-the-spirit?lang=eng

Nephi, no doubt, had powerful assurances of faith.  But enough Nephi relied on faith. 

 

From the Buddhist Studies website:

Do Buddhists believe in a god? No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says: Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines. Dp. 188 Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.  The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god's nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

[pogi]

Just now, Bobbieaware said:

From the Buddhist Studies website:

Do Buddhists believe in a god? No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says: Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines. Dp. 188 Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.  The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god's nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

I could have told you that.  You missed my point.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I see real merit in virtually all of your posts, as I do in this one. But why can’t we just be honest with ourselves as Latter-day Saints and acknowledge that, in this particular instance, the seed Alma is speaking of a true seed of spiritual witness sent from God that’s meant to be planted in the hearts of investigators of the true Church through the instrumentality of duly-authorized ministers of the true Church and gospel? Was not Alma clearly an authorized and empowered minister of the true gospel? Is not the seed of which Alma spoke the seed of true spiritual witness from God that has the potential to sprout and grow to become a full-blown testimony,?  And were not the Zoramites people who were investigating the truth claims of the true religion? Yes, Yes, Yes.  

So why do we think it’s acceptable to go so far afield from the obvious intended meaning of Alma 32 and imagine that it somehow authenticity applies to someone who is taking a liking to a religion that rejects the necessity of the atoning Christ and even goes so far as to reject the existence of God altogether? It seems that in this politically correct age even members of the true Church feel compelled to acknowledge that every religion and every religious claim is equally valid.

 

^

 

[Brother Bear]

9 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Although Oprah may not fully realize the implications of what she’s suggesting when she speaks of people in her camp standing up in defense for their version of the truth (“your truth”) I believe the idea she’s espousing is that there is no ultimate immutable truth (the eternal truth of God) and therefore truth is relative thing that can shift like the wind to fit present societal circumstances and exigencies. Because in her worldview truth is a purely human perception (opinion), many dangers lurk because fallen human beings stand in the place of God. After the rejection of the eternal God and his holy word, and the enthronement of fallen man in place of God, it’s not a far leap to get in the habit of cynically inventing “truth” (lying) to undermine one’s enemies and gain the upper hand. After all, if the is no eternal Jugde of the quick and the dead, what does it matter if one manipulates facts for their gain because there is no ultimate punishment for inventing lies as truth to worry about.

I don’t think there’s anything sinister in acknowledging that we are limited to perception, especially when the alternative is being sucked in to a black hole of infinite regress by claiming knowledge of immutable truths.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Brother Bear

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Although Oprah may not fully realize the implications of what she’s suggesting when she speaks of people in her camp standing up in defense for their version of the truth (“your truth”) I believe the idea she’s espousing is that there is no ultimate immutable truth (the eternal truth of God) and therefore truth is relative thing that can shift like the wind to fit present societal circumstances and exigencies. Because in her worldview truth is a purely human perception (opinion), many dangers lurk because fallen human beings stand in the place of God. After the rejection of the eternal God and his holy word, and the enthronement of fallen man in place of God, it’s not a far leap to get in the habit of cynically inventing “truth” (lying) to undermine one’s enemies and gain the upper hand. After all, if the is no eternal Jugde of the quick and the dead, what does it matter if one manipulates facts for their gain because there is no ultimate punishment for inventing lies as truth to worry about.

 

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can go along with this -- except that I don't like the phrase "subjective truths." Core values or core beliefs may very well equate to truth, but as I said earlier, from an outside perspective, they are only opinion if one doesn't share them.

Here is why I don't like phrases such as core beliefs - what I now have experienced and believed to be true, may one day be objectively verifiable - Jesus may turn up and let people test him - His existence then just moved from belief to objectively verifiable fact. I still think of my experiences as "true" even if I cannot prove them to others. It is just a different "kind" of truth for the time being - an unprovable truth - science tends to call those hypotheses or theories, although I acknowledge that the language context is different. Spiritual truths are just different from scientific ones. I don't call my own truths subjective truths, but I have and do refer to them as spiritual truths.

Edited January 17, 2018 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I see real merit in virtually all of your posts, as I do in this one. But why can’t we just be honest with ourselves as Latter-day Saints and acknowledge that, in this particular instance, the seed Alma is speaking of a true seed of spiritual witness sent from God that’s meant to be planted in the hearts of investigators of the true Church through the instrumentality of duly-authorized ministers of the true Church and gospel? Was not Alma clearly an authorized and empowered minister of the true gospel? Is not the seed of which Alma spoke the seed of true spiritual witness from God that has the potential to sprout and grow to become a full-blown testimony,?  And were not the Zoramites people who were investigating the truth claims of the true religion? Yes, Yes, Yes.  

So why do we think it’s acceptable to go so far afield from the obvious intended meaning of Alma 32 and imagine that it somehow authenticity applies to someone who is taking a liking to a religion that rejects the necessity of the atoning Christ and even goes so far as to reject the existence of God altogether? It seems that in this politically correct age even members of the true Church feel compelled to acknowledge that every religion and every religious claim is equally valid.

 

No one "rejects the necessity" of anything- they just do not believe it. They never even SEE the necessity 

 I thought it was a fable myself until God whopped me upside the head with a 2 x 4 board.  You cannot "reject" joining a church which worships Gandalf until you figure out that Gandalf is your salvation. (Seeing Jesus as a fable as Gandalf is)

I think many do not know how weird Mormonism appears to people.  No clue.  God appears to a guy and gives him gold plates about the Indians being Jewish?  Holy Cow!! 

And now you expect me to pray?  What is that?  And get some strange feeling that tells you that the Indians are Jewish because I get goosebumps or something?

When we send missionaries to Germany we teach them German and German culture, and what communicates to Germans.  Why bother?  Who needs language when we have the spirit?  

When we send missionaries to Spain, we teach them Spanish.  Why bother?  Who needs language when we have the spirit?

When we send missionaries to secular people, we should teach them Secular.  Why bother?  Because we want to speak their language and not insult them for being unable to feel the "right" goosebumps.  

We have to start, today, imo, with the idea that goosebumps are a valid way to find "their own truth" and THEN figure out when it happens that this is something else entirely.

Milk to meat.

The problem is that everyone is lactose intolerant (spirit intolerant) so they never get to the meat.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/14/2018 at 9:38 AM, Exiled said:

I disagree with your worldview, yes, and same sex marriage is just the topic of the day.  If you prefer it could be tithing or temple work or any of the other demands, claims made by mormonism.  It seems that one should be a little more sure about what one is proclaiming prior to trying to convince others of the path?  You say you have assurances of faith but still don't know with certainty, which means that your path could be a wrong road, yet you want to convince others to go down your uncertain path.  Unfortunately this system of "faith" is abused by the unscrupulous to lead people astray. 

Another question I have: planting the seed and seeing if it grows from Alma 32 is a nice sales pitch and I used it a lot when I was on my mission, but how do you really tell if the seed is growing or if it is just group think in action?  It always seemed to me that mormonism heavily depends on others helping the potential convert to interpret what they see.  The convert left to his/her own devices won't get there usually unless helped somehow.  They need to be convinced that what they are feeling is spiritual and not just emotional.  It seems that social pressure is a major part of it.  Do you agree?  Also, this system can be easily manipulated by the unscrupulous like I stated above, why would God have such a system?  Wouldn't a better system be to eliminate the God existing question all together and test on compliance only?  Or maybe God or Gods or none doesn't matter because traveling in the dark, completely and without parental guidance, is how to best give us experience and let us truly become adults?  

Uh, no.

I am certain.  Certainty is a state of mind like everything else we know.  Certainty is a feeling.

You are looking for scientific proof that your wife was the best person for you because you loved her.  

The most important decisions we make in life have nothing to do with objective evidence and the agreement of others in our personal truth.  

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, no.

I am certain.  Certainty is a state of mind like everything else we know.  Certainty is a feeling.

You are looking for scientific proof that your wife was the best person for you because you loved her.  

The most important decisions we make in life have nothing to do with objective evidence and the agreement of others in our personal truth.  

I'm not looking for scientific proof regarding my wife or whether or not your wife is right for you. Maybe they aren't, maybe they are. My point is that you are trying to impose your wife on others and I am saying that you can't be sure she is right for them, only that she is right for you. I feel this is correct.