Is the Holy Ghost legitimate?

[Michael Sudworth]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

On the other hand saying rocks  don't exist gets a little kinky.

This is weird. I really hope it is a typo.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said:

This is weird. I really hope it is a typo.

Ok.

Hinky

 

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm not sure I totally agree with the way you put it but I'm definitely behind the sentiment. I think I get what you're saying.

On the other hand saying rocks  don't exist gets a little kinky.

I can predict that you will get a lot of flack about stubbed toes in the next few minutes but I know where you're coming from.

It's all words.

I really like the CS Lewis quote thanks.

Yes, I know it's a bit sloppy though I'm working on it. ; ) And yes, that bed post was a bugger on my toe! That it induced the pain it did is no commentary on ultimate reality but only a practicality I am compelled to reckon with in this fictional existence - BIG difference. ; ) 

[Marginal Gains]

Was the Holy Ghost involved in the process of calling this primary teacher?

http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/lds-church-primary-teacher-arrested-in-texas-for-sexual-assault-of-a-child

Quote

 

The McKinney Police are asking for the public’s assistance to determine if there are additional child victims of Noel Anderson, 22, after he admitted to sexually assaulting four children between the ages of two and six over the course of the last seven years. 

Anderson is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and told police that he located his victims through church meetings as a primary teacher for children ages 7 to 8 in 2014.

 

 

[CV75]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Actually that is extremely profound IMO.  It is the scientific view of the universe which has taken the "magic" of miracles out of the church and the world in general- it is the objectification of everything and seeing only everything in the third person even the self.  Science says that the self is a collection of chemicals in the brain and totally ignores the phenomenology of consciousness as has been pointed out by philosophers across the world.

Objectification of consciousness is actually a huge ethical and moral problem- the reduction of the human to a bunch of cells.  It's a problem in the West only really and imo started with Aristotle and Plato and that is why it is so entrenched.  In fact that is how the apostasy has crept back into Mormonism - where a more phenomenological and pragmatic view might be the way out for us.

Remember that Christ implied that what we might call the "objectification" of women "denies the faith".  What harm could be a little porn?? But in fact objectification of consciousness is a symptom of a worldwide view that will eventually destroy humanity on earth.   Which might be a good thing. 

You should check this out- Givens refers to it in his new book.  https://www.amazon.com/Secular-Age-Charles-Taylor/dp/1522665056

 

Great thoughts. I’ve been looking a bit into the next phase of this progression, “dataism” (the chemicals constituting the self are but a collection of even more fundamental analogs, the value of which is determined by how well they contribute to the larger data processing system --controlled by a few, I might add). Instead of money and personal influence, data becomes the currency for power. While this mindset can also accommodate God (look at how we are encouraged to find value in plugging into the online family history network), but unfortunately as you point out, it is easy to get lost in that and forget why we’re doing it, setting us up for Gadiantonesque manipulation.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The event itself doesn't have to be subjectively observed to prove the existence of the asteroid.   If the only humans that existed on earth were subterranean, and none of them saw or heard or subjectively observed anything about the asteroid, but were instantaneously vaporized when it struct the earth.  Then who are the subjective observers to bring this asteroidal event into existence.  Maybe I misunderstand your assertion.  

Also, can you explain why you think this is a narrow scope and why the establishment of facts about the universe independent of human observations don't address humanity.  I completely don't agree.  Look at all the amazing progress we've made as a society built on the backbone of the scientific method and empirical analysis of observations of data.  I don't see how that's narrow or how it doesn't address humanity.  It has been the greatest influence on the quality of life in the history of the human species from my perspective.  

You mentioned earlier that to you, God is a subjective “experience” or “a belief in an experience.” The same can be said about the asteroid. One being might believe in this experience as an “asteroid,” another as a “problem-solving device,” and another, as “God,” and each one describes them accordingly. By extrapolation from prior experiences, I know that experiences are “out there.”

Whether by bias or gullibility, I can believe in the existence of the asteroid from the impact, but I can’t say I know it exists without the experience of seeing it. I can, like you, believe so strongly that I can say I know it exists, or at least enough to satisfy my standard of working knowledge. I believe that events and their causes are “out there” but only by extrapolation from prior events and their causes that I have experienced.

I think the post above (both my and mfb’s comments) covers it. The objectification of humanity is narrow in that it avoids recognition of subjective attributes. So it is helpful only in a narrow, controlled sense, and as long as the fuller picture isn’t lost. But as we can see, this discipline is often taken too far and becomes the end. (Your comment, "I completely don't agree" is a good example of that, if meant completely literally). Conversely, one can say the same thing about the Holy Ghost, but that would also be the result of objectifying the Holy Ghost.

So I can believe there was an asteroid, and can accept the asteroid strike as justification for my belief, and can even assert my belief as knowledge of fact, but that does not establish any indisputable, independent fact as far as I can tell.

[jkwilliams]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Cleared it out - hopefully you've got mail.

 

I hope you were able to talk. I always felt we'd probably get along just fine if we had talked instead of trading barbed posts. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Was the Holy Ghost involved in the process of calling this primary teacher?

http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/lds-church-primary-teacher-arrested-in-texas-for-sexual-assault-of-a-child

 

Another Abuse tragedy, so sad.  

As for the HQ, I would say that yes it was used in the calling process, it always is used.  The use of the HG isn't an infallible process, people get all kinds of wrong impressions and make mistakes all the time.  The idea that their is an infallible HG communication that people have access to isn't a reality from what I observe.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You mentioned earlier that to you, God is a subjective “experience” or “a belief in an experience.” The same can be said about the asteroid. One being might believe in this experience as an “asteroid,” another as a “problem-solving device,” and another, as “God,” and each one describes them accordingly. By extrapolation from prior experiences, I know that experiences are “out there.”

I don't think the same can be said about the asteroid.  We have empirical ways of objectively measuring the asteroid, but we don't have any similar ways of measuring the God experience.  Neuroscience is working on some interesting ways to measure people having the God experience, but this is a qualitatively different than observations of asteroids. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think the post above (both my and mfb’s comments) covers it. The objectification of humanity is narrow in that it avoids recognition of subjective attributes. So it is helpful only in a narrow, controlled sense, and as long as the fuller picture isn’t lost. But as we can see, this discipline is often taken too far and becomes the end. (Your comment, "I completely don't agree" is a good example of that, if meant completely literally). Conversely, one can say the same thing about the Holy Ghost, but that would also be the result of objectifying the Holy Ghost.

 

So I can believe there was an asteroid, and can accept the asteroid strike as justification for my belief, and can even assert my belief as knowledge of fact, but that does not establish any indisputable, independent fact as far as I can tell.

I just don't agree with your assessment that these things are helpful only in a narrow sense.  Many of the greatest contributions to humanity have been through the scientific method and these processes that you call narrow are quite broad from my perspective.  They don't tell us about personal experience, they can't quantify the mystical or how we feel personally experience life.  Those aspects are extremely important as well.  

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think the same can be said about the asteroid.  We have empirical ways of objectively measuring the asteroid, but we don't have any similar ways of measuring the God experience.  Neuroscience is working on some interesting ways to measure people having the God experience, but this is a qualitatively different than observations of asteroids.

Rather, you believe we have what you believe to be empirical ways of what you believe to be objective ways of measuring what you believe to be the asteroid. After all, it is a thought experiment 😊

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I just don't agree with your assessment that these things are helpful only in a narrow sense.  Many of the greatest contributions to humanity have been through the scientific method and these processes that you call narrow are quite broad from my perspective.  They don't tell us about personal experience, they can't quantify the mystical or how we feel personally experience life.  Those aspects are extremely important as well.  

As long as they are not integrated, either represents a narrow perspective.

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Another Abuse tragedy, so sad.  

As for the HQ, I would say that yes it was used in the calling process, it always is used.  The use of the HG isn't an infallible process, people get all kinds of wrong impressions and make mistakes all the time.  The idea that their is an infallible HG communication that people have access to isn't a reality from what I observe.  

That’s an interesting perspective considering the Holy Ghost is considered infallible when it comes to deciding that the Church and the Book of Mormon are what they claim to be.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

That’s an interesting perspective considering the Holy Ghost is considered infallible when it comes to deciding that the Church and the Book of Mormon are what they claim to be.

I think most Mormons believe the HG is infallible, but that humans are fallible at interpreting impressions.  I don't see how anyone could reliably distinguish between the two, what parts of impressions are coming from the fallible individual and what parts are coming from an infallible HG?  I know some people claim to be able to distinguish reliably between the two as if they are two distinctly different things, but I don't see any evidence to support a proficiency with doing so.  So I just consider the whole process fallible.  

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

That’s an interesting perspective considering the Holy Ghost is considered infallible when it comes to deciding that the Church and the Book of Mormon are what they claim to be.

The Holy Ghost is infallible.  The people attempting to recognize its promptings are VERY fallible.

[rodheadlee]

On 3/23/2018 at 9:19 AM, hope_for_things said:

Thinking about the MTC president scandal in the news, and I started talking to a friend about what I think is a common phenomenon with the LDS church around the concepts of the Holy Ghost, discernment, and inspiration.  Let me explain.  There seems to be a belief that the Holy Ghost is a replacement or cure all of sorts for many things that are handled differently in contemporary society.  Yet time and time again we see examples where this trust falls short.  Let me list a few examples where people assume that the Holy Ghost/discernment/inspiration makes up for the lack of formalized policies and practices.    

Instead of:

• Background checks on leaders who work with children we have - HG/discernment/inspiration
• Rigorous training for leaders we have - HG/discernment/inspiration
• Financial transparency we have - HG/discernment/inspiration
• Defined policies to protect abuse victims we have - HG/discernment/inspiration

These were just a few ideas off the top of my head, but you get the picture.  Does this trust in the Holy Ghost operate as a sort of cure all in our contemporary church?  A kind of snake oil that is supposed to fill in the gaps for all the areas where the church doesn't have sufficient programs and practices in place?  What other areas of deficiency are there that you hear people using the Holy Ghost as a way to fill the gaps of a process?  Any other thoughts about this, or am I getting this wrong?  

Do NOT compare sacred concepts to snake oil on this board. I have modified your title. If this disrespect continues the thread will be closed and you will be put on Limited.

You are not getting it. The Holy Ghost  is responsible for many things but due diligence is not one of them. I'll give you an example. I had a vision that my wife was  terminally ill. I had to run with it, get her to believe my vision and get all of the tests done, get them to the right doctors, get the surgery done. it was a long and painful project but in the end the last doctor said: " It's a miracle we caught this so soon, she won't need chemotherapy"

We must do the work. The Holy Ghost bares witness to the truth.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The Holy Ghost is infallible.  The people attempting to recognize its promptings are VERY fallible.

People cannot blame the Holy Ghost. It is not his fault.

[Marginal Gains]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The Holy Ghost is infallible.  The people attempting to recognize its promptings are VERY fallible.

In which case the Holy Ghost, as a mechanism for discerning truth is fallible. You have no mechanism for determining that the Holy Ghost is infallible, because that message has come through a fallible medium.

The Holy Ghost confirms to people that the LDS Church is true. The Holy Ghost also confirms to people that the FLDS Church is true. That Scientology is true. Etc.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You are not getting it. The Holy Ghost  is responsible for many things but due diligence is not one of them. I'll give you an example. I had a vision that my wife was  terminally ill. I had to run with it, get her to believe my vision and get all of the tests done, get them to the right doctors, get the surgery done. it was a long and painful project but in the end the last doctor said: " It's a miracle we caught this so soon, she won't need chemotherapy"

We must do the work. The Holy Ghost bares witness to the truth.

That's fine, your experience is different than how past church members and leaders taught how the Holy Ghost works, the spirit of discernment and the power of the spirit.  I'm not saying your experience isn't impactful for you, but I'm saying its different than others. 

I've talked to others who've had visions/impressions that weren't borne out to have any basis in fact whatsoever.  I tend to think that these experiences are very personal and they have some impetus, and I can't explain or understand what causes them.  For those who've had experiences that didn't turn out to be true, how would you explain those experiences?  

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You are not getting it. The Holy Ghost  is responsible for many things but due diligence is not one of them. I'll give you an example. I had a vision that my wife was  terminally ill. I had to run with it, get her to believe my vision and get all of the tests done, get them to the right doctors, get the surgery done. it was a long and painful project but in the end the last doctor said: " It's a miracle we caught this so soon, she won't need chemotherapy"

We must do the work. The Holy Ghost bares witness to the truth.

That is the key part.
The Holy Ghost has a calling to bear witness of truth to us.  We are to work, study, and ask the Holy Ghost for confirmation of truth.
And then we are to learn to put aside our own thoughts and accept what the spirit tells us is true, even if it troubles us or goes against what we thought the answer would be.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

That's fine, your experience is different than how past church members and leaders taught how the Holy Ghost works, the spirit of discernment and the power of the spirit.  I'm not saying your experience isn't impactful for you, but I'm saying its different than others. 

How is his experience different?  Seems like a match to me.

Quote

I've talked to others who've had visions/impressions that weren't borne out to have any basis in fact whatsoever.  I tend to think that these experiences are very personal and they have some impetus, and I can't explain or understand what causes them.  For those who've had experiences that didn't turn out to be true, how would you explain those experiences?  

Which then shows those visions/impressions came from a source other than the Holy Ghost.
We really are all terribly fallen, and as a result we have a really hard time recognizing the Holy Ghost.  Joseph Smith taught that it was something that had to be learned through practice, and even trial and error.