The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."  

This is our official and binding doctrine that we have upheld and accepted by covenant and common consent.  Are you suggesting that hermeneutics undermines that authoritative and official claim? I am not the one personally making that claim, I am simply repeating the authoritative official position and doctrine of the church as stated in our articles of faith.  Not only have we upheld that verse as authoritative and doctrinal, but we have further validated that claim by upholding the entire bible as authoritative and doctrinal by covenant and common consent (with the only caveat being that it is translated correctly).   

I don't see where it says, "as far as hermeneutics allows".

You can't simply state that hermeneutics undermines a claim until you actually apply it. The claim is made in Articles of Faith 1:8, so have at it...

I think I must be explaining myself poorly. Texts have meanings. We disagree on meanings. For something to be authoritative it refers to it's meaning not the uninterpreted glyphs. You are conflating those issues. Two people can agree the same text is authoritative yet disagree upon what it means. You are presuming that the "real" meaning is a literalist/fundamentalist reading that then is rejected in practice. The reason you see a conflict is because you think authority is to the fundamentalist interpretation of the text. My point simply is that by leaving out the discussion of what a text means you're creating an artificial conflict that need not be there at all.

To say that the text is authoritative doesn't mean, to use Brigham's example, that we have to be obedient to the meaning of the text as a whole. So you can't pick say Moses 1:12 and argue we're supposed to worship Satan. Because the meaning of that verse is in the context of the overall chapter (and most would argue the standard works as a whole which means the meaning of a verse is tied to theology in some way). 

My point just is that there is no conflict if one sees the standard works as a whole as the measuring tape and not a justification for a naive funamentalist reading of scripture that must be adhered to. I recognize that in practice you reject the fundamentalist reading yet in terms of authority by raising it as a conflict you're presuming a fundamentalist hermeneutic. It's that hermeneutic I'm rejecting.

Edited April 13, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think I must be explaining myself poorly. Texts have meanings. We disagree on meanings. For something to be authoritative it refers to it's meaning not the uninterpreted glyphs. You are conflating those issues. Two people can agree the same text is authoritative yet disagree upon what it means. You are presuming that the "real" meaning is a literalist/fundamentalist reading that then is rejected in practice. The reason you see a conflict is because you think authority is to the fundamentalist interpretation of the text. My point simply is that by leaving out the discussion of what a text means you're creating an artificial conflict that need not be there at all.

To say that the text is authoritative doesn't mean, to use Brigham's example, that we have to be obedient to the meaning of the text as a whole. So you can't pick say Moses 1:12 and argue we're supposed to worship Satan. Because the meaning of that verse is in the context of the overall chapter (and most would argue the standard works as a whole which means the meaning of a verse is tied to theology in some way). 

My point just is that there is no conflict if one sees the standard works as a whole as the measuring tape and not a justification for a naive funamentalist reading of scripture that must be adhered to. I recognize that in practice you reject the fundamentalist reading yet in terms of authority by raising it as a conflict you're presuming a fundamentalist hermeneutic. It's that hermeneutic I'm rejecting.

I'll be honest, I thought I knew what you were saying, but now I am confused. 

On one hand you are saying the following (from the previous thread); which happens to be the position that I too hold:

Quote

To assume that everything in a letter Paul wrote is of equal inspiration seems dubious. I think we as Mormons while denying some of our Evangelical friend's more fanciful views of the Bible often fall into a similar burden of proof. That is we treat Paul's letters like the D&C whereas they were letters by someone to particular wards (in our terminology) not necessarily approved by head leadership back in Jerusalem. To assume every verse is the same or that Paul's given explicit revelation rather than reasoning from shared beliefs seems problematic.

And this (from this thread):

Quote

Just because something is in the scriptures doesn't mean it's doctrine.

But now it sounds like you are saying that all scripture (given the proper interpretation and understanding of the intended meaning) IS authoritative.  Can you clarify where you stand?  If not all scripture is doctrinal, how can it all be authoritative? 

To clarify further, do you believe that those passages from Paul and Peter in the OP are the authoritative and doctrinal word of God, or do you believe that it is Paul's uninspired "reasoning from shared beliefs"?

If you accept those passages as the word of God, then what is the proper meaning of them?  

If you don't accept them as authoritative doctrine, and as God's word, then how do you reconcile Articles of Faith 1:8 and our acceptance of them as authoritative doctrine via common consent?

You keep telling me that I am ignoring the hermeneutics and accepting a fundamentalist view point.  On the contrary, I am trying to pry the hermeneutics out of you. You seem to be confident that there is "no conflict", so help me understand the proper meaning of the passages.  How do we reconcile these things?  In other words, don't just tell me that hermeneutics solves all of these seeming conflicts...show me. Because I would absolutely love to have these things settled in my mind.

Edited April 13, 2018 by pogi

[CV75]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

If we accept the whole as the word of God...then how do you explain those verse mentioned in the OP?  How do you integrate them into the whole without outright dismissing them?  It seems an impossible task for any genuine person to achieve. 

I don't accept those verses as the word of God.  They should not be included and validated as part of the "whole" - the "word of God".  Rather, I see them as cultural influences copied in epistles of fallible men. Yet, we accept them as authoritative and doctrinal as part of the whole. 

I accept those verses in the same way I accept our prophets, as authoritative and doctrinal as part of the dispensation of the fulness of times (“the whole”). God allowed us culturally-scented scripture verses for the same reasons He allows us fallible prophets, and He gave us keys and grace so we can garner the truth from them.

I have sometimes considered that we can view these kinds of verses as the base, foolish and weak that God chooses to confound the wise, not because of the base, foolish and weak aspects, but despite them. There is a good deal of grace to be acknowledged in the light still shining through cultures. The same kind of grace that allows us to assess the alignment of the words of the living prophets with the texts of ancient scripture.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

But now it sounds like you are saying that all scripture (given the proper interpretation and understanding of the intended meaning) IS authoritative.  Can you clarify where you stand?  If not all scripture is doctrinal, how can it all be authoritative? 

To clarify further, do you believe that those passages from Paul and Peter in the OP are the authoritative and doctrinal word of God, or do you believe that it is Paul's uninspired "reasoning from shared beliefs"?

If you accept those passages as the word of God, then what is the proper meaning of them?  

If you don't accept them as authoritative doctrine, and as God's word, then how do you reconcile Articles of Faith 1:8 and our acceptance of them as authoritative doctrine via common consent?

All scripture is authoritative in that it shows how the light shines through the non-doctrinal vestigial and legacy elements. It shows how people in their weakness and cultures applied the Gospel (however unflatteringly one culture might view another) and yet received mercy and grace.

The passages for Paul and Peter in the OP were authoritative and doctrinal in their day, in the way they understood things in their culture. They are authoritative and doctrinal in a more nuanced manner for us today, because we are reading these passages in a different culture and ideally with the help of the Holy Ghost.

For me, the proper meaning of these OP verses is that living prophets teach eternal truths within their cultural constraints, just as Peter and Paul did in their day. Institute and Seminary manuals help shed some light on their context and interpretation in our day. Had I not had that understanding, the proper meaning would be unknown, which is OK too, given the word of God is expressed through imperfect means. And given the Holy Ghost helps smooth things over, we are all on an equal playing field so fallibility on all fronts really has no bearing.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Yep.  Two different tools for two different purposes.  Your tools are great for building houses, but they are not as useful in building the kingdom of God - different tools for different jobs.

No problem with this, only the tool you have for building the kingdom of God doesn't do what you claim it does.  You can't measure the results of these spiritual experiences.  These personal experiences are expressions that are fulfilling and can assist in forming bonds in community and can be a very meaningful part of someone's life.  

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Ok, what do you suggest as a more reliable tool?  Do you have an objective tool that you measure your morality against and base your actions on?  You think it unwise to base our decisions on the spirit, but I think it unwise to base our moral/spiritual decisions on...anything else.  Prove to me that your tools are more reliable then mine.

You can build your moral code on whatever tool you want, but I will use the spirit.  I find it a more reliable source of peace and joy then anything else I have tried. 

To make decisions about how to build a building or what to eat in order to have a more healthy diet, we should follow the data.  Study the effects through science and follow the results.  You already do this in virtually every aspect of your life, it is built into the ways our society functions.  Unfortunately there is also something that is called randomness and humans have a great tendency to try and find patterns in the randomness.  

A couple interesting books I recommend you check out: 

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_18?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+drunkards+walk&sprefix=the+drunkards+walk%2Caps%2C696&crid=1PTNT79WGIKE2

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190495995/?coliid=I16M61L83C09O&colid=3DENV5AC8WEYS&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

As for how people should live their lives, I think that is something every individual is called to wrestle with.  I personally am in that wrestle all the time and many of my core values have been influenced by my Mormon upbringing, and are also influenced by the things I've learned as I continue to study and examine my life and the world around me.  One thing I have learned from study is that our intuitions sometimes are very good, and other times will completely fail us and are very bad.  If you begin to examine the many different ways that humans respond to the environment and the ways we self deceive, then you start to see how flawed it is to uncritically follow these intuitions that come into our mind. 

The intuitive mind is not God speaking and giving you special knowledge.  It is just part of a natural process at work within your brain, I suggest you consider some of the split brain studies that have been done, they are fascinating.  Science is beginning to understand how we have multiple competing ideas going on all the time within our brain and the executive functioning part of our brain essentially tries to determine how we act and then explain the reasoning for our actions after the fact in a post hoc kind of reasoning.  Its all fascinating, backed up by scientific study, and not just folk lore based on pseudo scientific speculations or some past traditions.  Its all fascinating stuff and we're in an era of new discovery around how the brain works and its amazing.  I hope you'll be curious to dive deeper, isn't that the Mormon way, we should be learning and absorbing the best information and then incorporating it into Mormonism because we want to follow the truth, we care about understanding the flaws of human thinking because it helps us to grow.  

 

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, that is what I believe though I do all the work stuff I can to make it happen. Not truly childish. A child just asks for what they want and expects a quick answer and will yell your name repeatedly until you respond (at least that is how my nieces and nephews operate). I tend to focus revelation on my callings and responsibilities and sometimes just ask to be taught something (a favorite in the temple).

Doing all that work stuff is precisely how you prime your brain to come up with a solution that you then call inspiration/revelation, but in actuality its just the natural process of your brain coming up with and making a decision.  Every time an idea pops into your mind, it isn't because there is some external entity whispering unique ideas directly into your neocortex.  Its the way your brain sorts out different functions that come from all the different parts of your brain.  See my recent response to Pogi, I linked to a couple books about how our brains sort through information.  There is a lot of great scientific material out there on this subject and its a fascinating to better understand how we think.  

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I prefer the stories people tell. Give me outpourings of the spirit and angels and visions and dreams and the Holy Ghost burning within me all the time so I can find it with a thought over consensus building with the best reason can come up with. Most people (even many in the Church) prefer the latter because it can be controlled. When you deal with God you are reduced to the child. You only get what God can and will give you. It is like giving a blessing. There is always that moment of nervousness that this time it won't work and this time the words and images won't come but they do. With real revelation you jump off a cliff trusting you will be caught.

We all love a good story, they are so inspirational.  I love art and literature.  Paul H. Dunn was very popular in Mormonism for a reason, he was a great story teller.  I believe all what you describe has an important place in our lives.  We can be inspired by and learn moral lessons to motivate us to do good in the world through these stories.  But its also important to distinguish between the real and the narrative fiction.  

Blessings "work" because of how they connect you to the people that you bless, and how it builds up the bonds of love between people.  The placebo effect can also be very powerful and have real benefits.  Then the person has to also get the best medical care that science provides and I see a win/win situation happening.  People get the benefits of actual medicine and the benefits of community support and placebo self healing as well.  

Edited April 13, 2018 by hope_for_things

[MormonMason]

This might apply to inspiration but over the decades of my life I also have received direct revelation, as in the Lord speaking to me in the first person.  These have been both in the mind and heart, and at times audibly.  When I have had these sorts of revelations they have never been wrong.  And many times they have involved things I could not possibly have known on my own.  Often these would be followed by physical confirmation sometime afterward.  Books on brain function don't explain that to my satisfaction, and neither did the battery of tests I underwent to try to find justification to deny what was happening to me and leave the Church by being able to deny it all.

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

This might apply to inspiration but over the decades of my life I also have received direct revelation, as in the Lord speaking to me in the first person.  These have been both in the mind and heart, and at times audibly.  When I have had these sorts of revelations they have never been wrong.  And many times they have involved things I could not possibly have known on my own.  Often these would be followed by physical confirmation sometime afterward.  Books on brain function don't explain that to my satisfaction, and neither did the battery of tests I underwent to try to find justification to deny what was happening to me and leave the Church by being able to deny it all.

Human memory is flawed and functions in ways to confirm our biases rather than to report how events actually happened.  This can be disturbing to learn about, but it is confirmed by careful studies.  Our memories even change when our beliefs change to align with our new belief.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28893150

In spite of all that, I'm not trying to convince you that there isn't a God.  God is an experience and its personal and many people have great comfort in the idea of God.  If your beliefs give you solace and purpose and help you be a better person, then keep believing them, just recognize that your memories do not represent facts about the past, but rather they represent the narrative your mind is constructing to explain your subjective reality.  These memories will often be at odds with the facts of history.  

 

[MormonMason]

I know all about issues with memory. That is why I have always been quick to write things down, including many of the revelations. Commit them to writing quickly and there are less of such kinds of potential issues.  It's more fun to see something happen, then remember that the Lord said something about that prior to the event, and then search what you wrote and compare.

Edited April 13, 2018 by MormonMason

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

I know all about issues with memory. That is why I have always been quick to write things down, including many of the revelations. Commit them to writing quickly and there are less of such kinds of potential issues.  It's more fun to see something happen, then remember that the Lord said something about that prior to the event, and then search what you wrote and compare.

Another other problem is with your perception of what is happening in real time.  Its filtered through your beliefs and your limited senses, so even quickly recording experiences still is fraught with many problems when it comes to accuracy.  

[MormonMason]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Another other problem is with your perception of what is happening in real time.  Its filtered through your beliefs and your limited senses, so even quickly recording experiences still is fraught with many problems when it comes to accuracy.  

My beliefs came through my experiences.  The first times it scared the heck out of me.  I was an atheist at the time.  I had no beliefs in a God who could speak to me.  But limited senses, I'm down with that.

Edited April 13, 2018 by MormonMason

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

These memories will often be at odds with the facts of history.

Exactly how often? I remember the moment I learned JFK was shot (on the elevator on my way home from school in the afternoon), though as a boy I don't recall knowing the date at the time.

And how often do the facts of history inform or expand the memory?

Where do the facts of history reside? Is there a history without a recorder (cue tree falling in a soundless forest)?

[pogi]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No problem with this, only the tool you have for building the kingdom of God doesn't do what you claim it does. 

Can you prove that?

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

One thing I have learned from study is that our intuitions sometimes are very good, and other times will completely fail us and are very bad. 

You are making a judgment of good vs. bad here.  What do you base that judgment on?  You say that your studies have taught you what is good and bad.  How so?  When it comes to moral/spiritual judgments, what tool do you use to determine what is good and bad in your studies?  You say that you wrestle with things, but what does that look like exactly?  How do you ultimately determine what is right and wrong?  I am trying to get you to pry further to realize that ultimately, it is your intuition that makes that judgment.  There is no objective tool that we can critically evaluate to come up with the right answer.  You are essentially using your intuition to judge your intuition here.  Seems circular.  In the end, all you are doing is trusting in your intuition of what is right and wrong. 

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by pogi

[RevTestament]

41 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

My beliefs came through my experiences.  The first times it scared the heck out of me.  I was an atheist at the time.  I had no beliefs in a God who could speak to me.  But limited senses, I'm down with that.

Did any of them have to do with the restored gospel or the truths of the Church? were they instructionary? Have you written about any of your experiences? Are you comfortable in sharing any? Are you willing to share how you came to join the Church? If I am being too personal, please forgive me in advance, but I do like hearing about this type of thing. I find it inspiring.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The intuitive mind is not God speaking and giving you special knowledge.  It is just part of a natural process at work within your brain, I suggest you consider some of the split brain studies that have been done, they are fascinating. 

How do split brain studies disprove that God speaks to our minds? 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

My beliefs came through my experiences.  The first times it scared the heck out of me.  I was an atheist at the time.  I had no beliefs in a God who could speak to me.  But limited senses, I'm down with that.

I'm curious, if you had no belief in God at the time, why would you think it was God speaking?  I'm sure many atheists experience voices and ideas and don't consider these things evidence for God, what was it that caused you to interpret it that way?  

[hope_for_things]

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Exactly how often? I remember the moment I learned JFK was shot (on the elevator on my way home from school in the afternoon), though as a boy I don't recall knowing the date at the time.

And how often do the facts of history inform or expand the memory?

Where do the facts of history reside? Is there a history without a recorder (cue tree falling in a soundless forest)?

There have been studies about this kind of phenomenon, memories of important events.  You may have run across some studies about people's memories of 911.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/911-memory-accuracy/

If you're a student of Mormon history you're probably familiar with the many recollections about the Brigham Young transfiguration, or the seagulls rescuing the crops in Utah. 

How often do these kinds of faulty memories happen?  As often as there are humans to create them.  

Is there an ultimate source for the facts of history, like a super mind that can with 100% precision record every event?  Not that I'm aware of.  That doesn't make all memories equally flawed though, we can and should use the tools at our disposal to evaluate the veracity of different accounts.  

 

[hope_for_things]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No problem with this, only the tool you have for building the kingdom of God doesn't do what you claim it does. 

Can you prove that?

I spent the last few exchanges arguing this very point.  Can you "prove" otherwise?  

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

One thing I have learned from study is that our intuitions sometimes are very good, and other times will completely fail us and are very bad. 

You are making a judgment of good vs. bad here.  What do you base that judgment on?  You say that your studies have taught you what is good and bad.  How so?  When it comes to moral/spiritual judgments, what tool do you use to determine what is good and bad in your studies?  You say that you wrestle with things, but what does that look like exactly?  How do you ultimately determine what is right and wrong?  I am trying to get you to pry further to realize that ultimately, it is your intuition that makes that judgment.  There is no objective tool that we can critically evaluate to come up with the right answer.  You are essentially using your intuition to judge your intuition here.  Seems circular.  In the end, all you are doing is trusting in your intuition of what is right and wrong. 

When it comes to intuition, there are many reasoning flaws that people make.  I have referenced a few books and links in this thread that talk about some of these different flaws with our intuitive thinking.  I wasn't speaking of bad and good in a moral sense in that sentence, I was speaking of bad and good in an accuracy sense.  

I recognize that our feelings have an impact on how we determine right and wrong from an ethical/moral perspective.  This is precisely why we should all want to know when our intuition fails us and when our biases deceive our thinking.  It takes conscientious critical thinking and awareness to try and correct for these erroneous natural human tendencies.  

Are you suggesting it would be better if we were consciously unaware of our fallacious and biased thought processes?  Or are you saying that someone unaware of flawed memories and biases is somehow equally capable of making accurate descriptions of the world around them?  Should we just throw out all the things we're learning about human thinking and say that its all too complicated, therefore everyone's thinking is of equal validity and nothing objective is possible, its all just subjective, all observations are equally flawed.  

 

[hope_for_things]

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

How do split brain studies disprove that God speaks to our minds? 

I find the split brain studies interesting for a multitude of reasons, they show how the different hemispheres of our brains have different thought processes and even different motivations and ways of experiencing reality and explaining that experience.  It also gives a very solid natural explanation for how a person can experience thoughts and voices that someone might describe as coming from somewhere external to themselves.  

I have a different way of describing what I think God is than your average Mormon.  

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How often do these kinds of faulty memories happen?  As often as there are humans to create them. 

No, much fewer, because not every memory is faulty and memory:human is far greater than 1:1. How often are there humans to create them--what does that even mean? Granted, you can point to examples that support your bias, but you haven't really answered the question with any accuracy. Faith is still the overriding principle in living an objective/objectified life, which is really the self-denial of subjective living.

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That doesn't make all memories equally flawed though, we can and should use the tools at our disposal to evaluate the veracity of different accounts. 

So we need ears close enough to hear in order for a falling tree to make a sound, or faith in the accuracy of an audio recording. Yet absent a record of history we still possess memories. What does such a perfect memory look like? Who is to say which are flawed or perfect, and does that even matter?

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, much fewer, because not every memory is faulty and memory:human is far greater than 1:1. How often are there humans to create them--what does that even mean? Granted, you can point to examples that support your bias, but you haven't really answered the question with any accuracy. Faith is still the overriding principle in living an objective/objectified life, which is really the self-denial of subjective living.

My answer was no less unanswerable than your question.  Some studies that I've read talk about accuracy declining with time, but I don't know of any way to put a precise number on "how often".  

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So we need ears close enough to hear in order for a falling tree to make a sound, or faith in the accuracy of an audio recording. Yet absent a record of history we still possess memories. What does such a perfect memory look like? Who is to say which are flawed or perfect, and does that even matter?

Of course it matters.  Would you want to make financial decisions using flawed financial data?  Should we care about accuracy of the history books written that we study in schools?  Would you want to make medical decisions using flawed medical memories?  It matters for virtually everything we do in this life.  

I really don't get this, you seem to be taking a similar angle that Pogi has been taking.   Its really a strange perspective, and I'm somewhat of a relativist when it comes to philosophical discussions and typically get a lot of push back from more conservative thinking people on my perspective.  Now you and Pogi are making this argument that we can't really judge anything because everything is flawed and subjective so we should consider all things equally impossible to judge, which seems to me like your taking the relativist argument to an even further point that I'm willing to take it.  Maybe one of you can help me understand this, because I'm not following this line of thinking.  

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I spent the last few exchanges arguing this very point.  Can you "prove" otherwise?  

That is my point.  You seem to think that there is an objective measure that can prove/measure  spiritual/moral things.  It doesn't exist.  I cannot prove it to you, so I don't intend to try because there is no objective measure.  It is a spiritual question with a spiritual answer. 

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

When it comes to intuition, there are many reasoning flaws that people make.  I have referenced a few books and links in this thread that talk about some of these different flaws with our intuitive thinking.  I wasn't speaking of bad and good in a moral sense in that sentence, I was speaking of bad and good in an accuracy sense.  

Regarding the bold part - I am only talking about moral/spiritual decisions.  Again, different tools for different jobs.  You are right, your tools work great for accuracy, so long as they are not about spiritual/moral accuracy.

Quote

I recognize that our feelings have an impact on how we determine right and wrong from an ethical/moral perspective.  This is precisely why we should all want to know when our intuition fails us and when our biases deceive our thinking.  It takes conscientious critical thinking and awareness to try and correct for these erroneous natural human tendencies.  

Again, what is the objective measure and tool of moral/ethical rightness or wrongness?  You keep saying "critical thinking" - based on what tool?  What is the measure?  How can you know for sure that your moral/ethical instints are right or wrong.  What are you measuring them against exactly?  "Conscientious critical thinking and awareness" of what?  What objective awareness are you talking about?  There is no such thing!

Quote

Are you suggesting it would be better if we were consciously unaware of our fallacious and biased thought processes?  Or are you saying that someone unaware of flawed memories and biases is somehow equally capable of making accurate descriptions of the world around them?  Should we just throw out all the things we're learning about human thinking and say that its all too complicated, therefore everyone's thinking is of equal validity and nothing objective is possible, its all just subjective, all observations are equally flawed.  

It is good to be aware of our thought processes.  But when it comes to spiritual/moral/ethical matters, it is better to be aware of our hearts. To see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and understand with our hearts.  There is no other measure.

Edited April 13, 2018 by pogi

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Doing all that work stuff is precisely how you prime your brain to come up with a solution that you then call inspiration/revelation, but in actuality its just the natural process of your brain coming up with and making a decision.  Every time an idea pops into your mind, it isn't because there is some external entity whispering unique ideas directly into your neocortex.  Its the way your brain sorts out different functions that come from all the different parts of your brain.  See my recent response to Pogi, I linked to a couple books about how our brains sort through information.  There is a lot of great scientific material out there on this subject and its a fascinating to better understand how we think.  

We all love a good story, they are so inspirational.  I love art and literature.  Paul H. Dunn was very popular in Mormonism for a reason, he was a great story teller.  I believe all what you describe has an important place in our lives.  We can be inspired by and learn moral lessons to motivate us to do good in the world through these stories.  But its also important to distinguish between the real and the narrative fiction.  

Blessings "work" because of how they connect you to the people that you bless, and how it builds up the bonds of love between people.  The placebo effect can also be very powerful and have real benefits.  Then the person has to also get the best medical care that science provides and I see a win/win situation happening.  People get the benefits of actual medicine and the benefits of community support and placebo self healing as well.  

That is a lot of words to just say I am delusional.

Just say what you mean next time. Oh, and you are completely wrong and missing out.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I spent the last few exchanges arguing this very point.  Can you "prove" otherwise?  

That is my point.  You seem to think that there is an objective measure that can prove/measure  spiritual/moral things.  It doesn't exist.  I cannot prove it to you, so I don't intend to try because there is no objective measure.  It is a spiritual question with a spiritual answer. 

What?  I think you're getting turned around.  You are the one claiming that the Holy Spirit is a tool by which we can measure spiritual experiences.  I'm the one disputing this claim.  These spiritual answers are subjective, not objective.  There isn't an accurate way of measuring spiritual experiences at all, that's the whole point I've been making.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

When it comes to intuition, there are many reasoning flaws that people make.  I have referenced a few books and links in this thread that talk about some of these different flaws with our intuitive thinking.  I wasn't speaking of bad and good in a moral sense in that sentence, I was speaking of bad and good in an accuracy sense.  

Regarding the bold part - I am only talking about moral/spiritual decisions.  Again, different tools for different jobs.  You are right, your tools work great for accuracy, so long as they are not about spiritual/moral accuracy.

I agree different tools for different jobs, but I already pointed out that listening to your intuition, your gut, your spiritual feelings, is fraught with many risks from the flawed ways of thinking that we humans are prone too.  So just going with your gut, is not a consistently smart way of making decisions spiritual or otherwise.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Again, what is the objective measure and tool of moral/ethical rightness or wrongness?  You keep saying "critical thinking" - based on what tool?  What is the measure?  How can you know for sure that your moral/ethical instints are right or wrong.  What are you measuring them against exactly?  "Conscientious critical thinking and awareness" of what?  What objective awareness are you talking about?  There is no such thing!

It depends.  There isn't one right or wrong universal answer, everything is circumstantial and requires evaluation.  That's why it takes critical thinking.  You can't just google it and get an answer.  You have to put in the effort and weigh the pros and cons and look at things from multiple angles.  This is with respect to every moral situation.  I didn't say its an objective process, it is subjective.  I never made the claim that there is some ultimate objective morality.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It is good to be aware of our thought processes.  But when it comes to spiritual/moral/ethical matters, it is better to be aware of our hearts. To see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and understand with our hearts.  There is no other measure.

Intentions(what's in someone's heart) are part of the equation for determining culpability, but they are only part of the equation.  If only intentions mattered, then you can justify a whole lot of evil doing in this world.  No, what's in the heart is not the only measurement by which we judge morality.  The effects of the decisions individuals make matters.  The amount of suffering caused from acts of commission and from acts of omission are extremely important.  And we're seeing these effects with our eyes and hearing them with our ears and we can't just ignore those effects because someone had good intentions in their heart.  

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is a lot of words to just say I am delusional.

Just say what you mean next time. Oh, and you are completely wrong and missing out.

We're all delusional to a certain extent, in that we all don't know what we don't know. I wasn't trying to be rude or anything.  

And I'm sure that I'm missing out on some things in life, as are you, we all are.  My whole goal in life is to keep plugging along, learning and growing and experiencing.  I have no malice towards you or anyone else.  I'm a Mormon, not a conventional one though, and I appreciate the conversation.