Ahab Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 7 minutes ago, teddyaware said: But if so many of the things the vast majority of the human race believe to be concrete realities of life, after thousands of years of shared collective experiences, can be explained away as being merely illusory or symbolic and not actual encounters with foundational reality, why should atheists take the leap of faith to believe religious truth is somehow the lone exception to the rule? You talk about the inadequacies of human language, yet the prophet Joseph Smith testified reading his English translation of the Book of Mormon will bring a man into closer to God than will any other book. But could it be that what the prophet is actually saying is while the Book of Mormon will indeed bring a man closer to God, the sad truth is that it brings a man only very slightly closer to God because the English language is so deficient and inadequate in it its capacity to reveal elemental, unalloyed truth? For example, in your view do you believe God the Father has a body of flesh and bone, but when you get right down to the most fundamental reality his body is also nothing more than a symbol or an illusion, like the color blue, because ultimate reality is nothing more than a realm of thoughts and ideas? By the way, in my experiences with LSD — the last of which occurred more that 50 years ago — I never experienced even a single hallucination. Rather, I only experienced deep thoughts, all of which were quite real, just as real as any thought I’ve had ever since. In fact, during one experience, months before I ever knew anything about the restored gospel, I told a group of friends who were also using that I had just received an answer to the mystery of existence, and the answer is that there cannot be an existence unless it is predicated upon the principle of there being a law opposition in all things. So you need to understand that I genuinely envy your ability to enter that world of deep philosophical contemplation without having to take an illegal drug to get itto the state of mind. As I’ve said in the past, I believe if you were somehow better able to use the English language to explain how you think and feel there would likely be a Eureka moment and a meeting of the minds. You see, in your own mind you know what you think and feel is real and very worthwhile, but the problem is you seem to be unable to explain it in a way that enables someone like me to comprehend what you’re talking about. It must be very frustrating. Perhaps this explains why you feel human language is so inadequate? I suggest you give some more thought to the idea that you understand what Mark understands and that what you find deficient is that level of understanding. Because you see that it doesn't make sense, totally, even though some of it makes sense. Think on this thought some more: words can never represent reality. The fact that he is using the word "never" should be setting off some alarm bells in your head. Use hyperbole much? Words can be very powerful when used as symbols to represent reality. Words are not perfect but they are very useful and sometimes... even if only in uncommon or rare occasions... they actually do represent what is real and true and a part of real reality. Link to comment
teddyaware Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 40 minutes ago, Ahab said: I suggest you give some more thought to the idea that you understand what Mark understands and that what you find deficient is that level of understanding. Because you see that it doesn't make sense, totally, even though some of it makes sense. Think on this thought some more: words can never represent reality. The fact that he is using the word "never" should be setting off some alarm bells in your head. Use hyperbole much? Words can be very powerful when used as symbols to represent reality. Words are not perfect but they are very useful and sometimes... even if only in uncommon or rare occasions... they actually do represent what is real and true and a part of real reality. It causes one to wonder if the word of God can adequately represent reality? Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 8 hours ago, teddyaware said: But if so many of the things the vast majority of the human race believe to be concrete realities of life, after thousands of years of shared collective experiences, can be explained away as being merely illusory or symbolic and not actual encounters with foundational reality, why should atheists take the leap of faith to believe religious truth is somehow the lone exception to the rule? You talk about the inadequacies of human language, yet the prophet Joseph Smith testified reading his English translation of the Book of Mormon will bring a man into closer to God than will any other book. But could it be that what the prophet is actually saying is while the Book of Mormon will indeed bring a man closer to God, the sad truth is that it brings a man only very slightly closer to God because the English language is so deficient and inadequate in it its capacity to reveal elemental, unalloyed truth? For example, in your view do you believe God the Father has a body of flesh and bone, but when you get right down to the most fundamental reality his body is also nothing more than a symbol or an illusion, like the color blue, because ultimate reality is nothing more than a realm of thoughts and ideas? By the way, in my experiences with LSD — the last of which occurred more that 50 years ago — I never experienced even a single hallucination. Rather, I only experienced deep thoughts, all of which were quite real, just as real as any thought I’ve had ever since. In fact, during one experience, months before I ever knew anything about the restored gospel, I told a group of friends who were also using that I had just received an answer to the mystery of existence, and the answer is that there cannot be an existence unless it is predicated upon the principle of there being a law opposition in all things. So you need to understand that I genuinely envy your ability to enter that world of deep philosophical contemplation without having to take an illegal drug to get itto the state of mind. As I’ve said in the past, I believe if you were somehow better able to use the English language to explain how you think and feel there would likely be a Eureka moment and a meeting of the minds. You see, in your own mind you know what you think and feel is real and very worthwhile, but the problem is you seem to be unable to explain it in a way that enables someone like me to comprehend what you’re talking about. It must be very frustrating. Perhaps this explains why you feel human language is so inadequate? I am trying to bring Rorty down a step for those that don't get it. I guess I cannot do so and need to concentrate on other audiences. I had studied all his predecessors for 35 years or so, and I read that sentence in my siggy and flipped out. THERE IT WAS, CLEAR AS A BELL FOR ALL TO SEE! JUST READ THAT AND EVERYONE WILL UNDERSTAND THE PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING A RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF MORMON THEOLOGY, words and visions, all of it!!! Direct verbally unmediated experience IS reality, it is the best we can do. Some have gotten it, about 10 or so since I started here, but was it worth it? I live to see the light go on. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, teddyaware said: It causes one to wonder if the word of God can adequately represent reality? Are you kidding? You think that 3 squiggles on a page is Photo reflecting all you feel in a theophany? How can thousands of words describe GOD? All the libraries in the world cannot How can you not see that there are no mirrors that can even show you the wonders of a leaf, when all the libraries cannot describe your creator and all he does and is? Can words "re-present", that is "present again" a single color for a blind man? How could they re-present GOD? rep·re·sent /ˌreprəˈzent/ See definitions in: All Sport Parliament Art Law verb verb: represent; 3rd person present: represents; past tense: represented; past participle: represented; gerund or present participle: representing 1. be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone), especially in an official capacity. "for purposes of litigation, an infant can and must be represented by an adult" Similar: be elected by be the councilor/MP for have the vote of appear for act for speak for act/speak on behalf of be spokesperson for be the representative of (of a competitor) participate in a sports event or other competition on behalf of (one's club, town, region, or country). "Owens represented the U.S" Similar: play for appear for be a member of the team be an elected member of a legislature for (a particular constituency, party, or group). "she became the first woman to represent her district" act as a substitute for (someone), especially on an official or ceremonial occasion. "the president was represented by the secretary of state" Similar: deputize for act as a substitute for substitute for stand in for take the place of replace 2. constitute; amount to. "this figure represents eleven percent of the company's total sales" Similar: constitute be amount to mean be regarded as be a specimen or example of; typify. "twenty parents, picked to represent a cross section of rural life" Similar: be a typical sample of be representative of typify stand for (of a group or type of person or thing) be present or found in something, especially to a particular degree. "abstraction is well represented in this exhibition" 3. depict (a particular subject) in a picture or other work of art. "santos are small wooden figures representing saints" Similar: depict portray render picture delineate show illustrate characterize paint draw sketch exhibit display limn describe or depict (someone or something) as being of a certain nature; portray in a particular way. "the young were consistently represented as being in need of protection" Similar: describe as present as profess to be purport to be claim to be set oneself up as pass oneself off as pose as pretend to be masquerade as (of a sign or symbol) have a particular signification; stand for. "the numbers 1–10 represent the letters A–J" Similar: stand for correspond to designate denote mean betoken be a symbol or embodiment of (a particular quality or thing). "the three heads of Cerberus represent the past, present, and future" Similar: symbolize stand for personify epitomize typify be symbolic of embody give human form/shape to body forth illustrate incorporate reflect incarnate image play the part of (someone) in a theatrical production. 4. FORMAL state or point out (something) clearly. "it was represented to him that she would be an unsuitable wife" Similar: point out state indicate present set forth put forward allege; claim. "the vendors have represented that such information is accurate" Similar: claim maintain state say affirm allege contend asseverate Origin late Middle English: from Old French representer or Latin repraesentare, from re- (expressing intensive force) + praesentare ‘to present’. Translate represent toChoose languageAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBanglaBasqueBelarusianBosnianBulgarianBurmeseCatalanCebuanoChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKinyarwandaKoreanKurdishKyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianNepaliNorwegianNyanjaOdiaPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScottish GaelicSerbianShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSouthern SothoSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTatarTeluguThaiTurkishTurkmenUkrainianUrduUyghurUzbekVietnameseWelshWestern FrisianXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu Use over time for: represent Definitions from Oxford Languages Feedback Edited January 9, 2021 by mfbukowski 1 Link to comment
teddyaware Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Are you kidding? You think that 3 squiggles on a page is Photo reflecting all you feel in a theophany? How can thousands of words describe GOD? All the libraries in the world cannot How can you not see that there are no mirrors that can even show you the wonders of a leaf, when all the libraries cannot describe your creator and all he does and is? Can words "re-present", that is "present again" a single color for a blind man? How could they re-present GOD? rep·re·sent /ˌreprəˈzent/ See definitions in: All Sport Parliament Art Law verb verb: represent; 3rd person present: represents; past tense: represented; past participle: represented; gerund or present participle: representing 1. be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone), especially in an official capacity. "for purposes of litigation, an infant can and must be represented by an adult" Similar: be elected by be the councilor/MP for have the vote of appear for act for speak for act/speak on behalf of be spokesperson for be the representative of (of a competitor) participate in a sports event or other competition on behalf of (one's club, town, region, or country). "Owens represented the U.S" Similar: play for appear for be a member of the team be an elected member of a legislature for (a particular constituency, party, or group). "she became the first woman to represent her district" act as a substitute for (someone), especially on an official or ceremonial occasion. "the president was represented by the secretary of state" Similar: deputize for act as a substitute for substitute for stand in for take the place of replace 2. constitute; amount to. "this figure represents eleven percent of the company's total sales" Similar: constitute be amount to mean be regarded as be a specimen or example of; typify. "twenty parents, picked to represent a cross section of rural life" Similar: be a typical sample of be representative of typify stand for (of a group or type of person or thing) be present or found in something, especially to a particular degree. "abstraction is well represented in this exhibition" 3. depict (a particular subject) in a picture or other work of art. "santos are small wooden figures representing saints" Similar: depict portray render picture delineate show illustrate characterize paint draw sketch exhibit display limn describe or depict (someone or something) as being of a certain nature; portray in a particular way. "the young were consistently represented as being in need of protection" Similar: describe as present as profess to be purport to be claim to be set oneself up as pass oneself off as pose as pretend to be masquerade as (of a sign or symbol) have a particular signification; stand for. "the numbers 1–10 represent the letters A–J" Similar: stand for correspond to designate denote mean betoken be a symbol or embodiment of (a particular quality or thing). "the three heads of Cerberus represent the past, present, and future" Similar: symbolize stand for personify epitomize typify be symbolic of embody give human form/shape to body forth illustrate incorporate reflect incarnate image play the part of (someone) in a theatrical production. 4. FORMAL state or point out (something) clearly. "it was represented to him that she would be an unsuitable wife" Similar: point out state indicate present set forth put forward allege; claim. "the vendors have represented that such information is accurate" Similar: claim maintain state say affirm allege contend asseverate Origin late Middle English: from Old French representer or Latin repraesentare, from re- (expressing intensive force) + praesentare ‘to present’. Translate represent toChoose languageAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBanglaBasqueBelarusianBosnianBulgarianBurmeseCatalanCebuanoChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKinyarwandaKoreanKurdishKyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianNepaliNorwegianNyanjaOdiaPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScottish GaelicSerbianShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSouthern SothoSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTatarTeluguThaiTurkishTurkmenUkrainianUrduUyghurUzbekVietnameseWelshWestern FrisianXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu Use over time for: represent Definitions from Oxford Languages Feedback Here’s the problem with your analysis and your insistence that language is too imperfect to communicate eternal truth in an effective way: The fact of the matter is that your observations on the inadequacy of language are a given in the scriptures. There is nothing remarkable about anything you are saying on this subject; it’s all common knowledge that even an average LDS 12 year-old could do an adequate job of explaining. What is it? It’s that the thing that makes human language such a powerful conveyer of truth is reading or listening to the words of language with the revelatory aid of the Spirit of God. This is common knowledge, and aside from the testimony of Jesus it’s practically the whole burden of the scriptures. What is it? That language combined with the Spirit of God is a more than adequate and effective conveyer truth. There is no controversy here. The only real controversy is that you appear to be unwilling to accept the well attested scriptural fact that language combined with revelation from heaven is an effective communicator of truth. But perhaps I’ve got you wrong on this point? The prophet Joseph Smith said that when he was 14 years-old he was one day reading reading the epistle of James, first chapter and 5th verse and that the words jumped off the page and right into his heart. “Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It entered with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again...” So here’s a foremost paradigm of language combining with the Spirit of God to the point of such revelatory effectiveness that it actually led to a dramatic, eye opening encounter with the source all truth, God the Father and Jesus Christ! So what’s new here? Nothing. It seems you may not appreciate that every member of the Church with a lick of sense already knows that language on its own cannot persuade the human mind to believe in or comprehend the transcendent. This controversy is unnecessary because your point is well taken and most easy to understand and accept — human language cannot effectively communicate the things of God without the enlightening power of the Spirit of God making an impact on the human mind. I can accept this without the slightest reservation because I know it’s true. Now all you have to say to end this debate on a point of agreement is that language can be an effective conveyer of truth as long as it is combined with the revelatory power of the Spirit, or Mind, of God (in the Lectures on Faith the prophet Joseph Smith equates the Spirit of God with the Mind of God’, and things don’t get any more spiritually enlightening than that!). Now I will concede that the optimal way to communicate truth would be with God’s perfect language in combination with the fullness of the Spirit of God. But while the combination of the English language, for example, and the Spirit of God may not communicate truth as effectively as God’s language in combination with the fulness of the Spirit, it’s at least effective enough for a great prophet of God to testify... “4 And when ye shall receive these things (the Book of Mormon translated into English), I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Edited January 9, 2021 by teddyaware 1 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, teddyaware said: Here’s the problem with your analysis and your insistence that language is too imperfect to communicate eternal truth in an effective way: The fact of the matter is that your observations on the inadequacy of language are a given in the scriptures. There is nothing remarkable about anything you are saying on this subject; it’s all common knowledge that even an average LDS 12 year-old could do an adequate job of explaining. What is it? It’s that the thing that makes human language such a powerful conveyer of truth is reading or listening to the words of language with the revelatory aid of the Spirit of God. This is common knowledge, and aside from the testimony of Jesus it’s practically the whole burden of the scriptures. What is it? That language combined with the Spirit of God is a more than adequate and effective conveyer truth. There is no controversy here. The only real controversy is that you appear to be unwilling to accept the well attested scriptural fact that language combined with revelation from heaven is an effective communicator of truth. But perhaps I’ve got you wrong on this point? The prophet Joseph Smith said that when he was 14 years-old he was one day reading reading the epistle of James, first chapter and 5th verse and that the words jumped off the page and right into his heart. “Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It entered with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again...” So here’s a foremost paradigm of language combining with the Spirit of God to the point of such revelatory effectiveness that it actually led to a dramatic, eye opening encounter with the source all truth, God the Father and Jesus Christ! So what’s new here? Nothing. It seems you may not appreciate that every member of the Church with a lick of sense already knows that language on its own cannot persuade the human mind to believe in or comprehend the transcendent. This controversy is unnecessary because your point is well taken and most easy to understand and accept — human language cannot effectively communicate the things of God without the enlightening power of the Spirit of God making an impact on the human mind. I can accept this without the slightest reservation because I know it’s true. Now all you have to say to end this debate on a point of agreement is that language can be an effective conveyer of truth as long as it is combined with the revelatory power of the Spirit, or Mind, of God (in the Lectures on Faith the prophet Joseph Smith equates the Spirit of God with the Mind of God’, and things don’t get any more spiritually enlightening than that!). Now I will concede that the optimal way to communicate truth would be with God’s perfect language in combination with the fullness of the Spirit of God. But while the combination of the English language, for example, and the Spirit of God may not communicate truth as effectively as God’s language in combination with the fulness of the Spirit, it’s at least effective enough for a great prophet of God to testify... “4 And when ye shall receive these things (the Book of Mormon translated into English), I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Those scriptures were the cornerstone of my conversion Thanks, you have explained it well. I am so glad that you now understand that there is no conflict between contemporary philosophy, the church and the scriptures except in cases of misinterpretation. They can all be interpreted as compatible. That is my objective. I see that fact as, if understood, what could allow the church to convert thousands. And my dense brain has now seen a presentation which works for great folks like you, thanks very much. I have been preaching philosophy of language assuming that people would instantly see those connections with scripture because that is how I see it. It only works with few. Stupid me. I have trouble seeing the world as others do. I was an only child who was not very social and had interests unlike the other kids. Edited January 9, 2021 by mfbukowski Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 6 hours ago, teddyaware said: Here’s the problem with your analysis and your insistence that language is too imperfect to communicate eternal truth in an effective way: The fact of the matter is that your observations on the inadequacy of language are a given in the scriptures. There is nothing remarkable about anything you are saying on this subject; it’s all common knowledge that even an average LDS 12 year-old could do an adequate job of explaining. What is it? It’s that the thing that makes human language such a powerful conveyer of truth is reading or listening to the words of language with the revelatory aid of the Spirit of God. This is common knowledge, and aside from the testimony of Jesus it’s practically the whole burden of the scriptures. What is it? That language combined with the Spirit of God is a more than adequate and effective conveyer truth. There is no controversy here. The only real controversy is that you appear to be unwilling to accept the well attested scriptural fact that language combined with revelation from heaven is an effective communicator of truth. But perhaps I’ve got you wrong on this point? The prophet Joseph Smith said that when he was 14 years-old he was one day reading reading the epistle of James, first chapter and 5th verse and that the words jumped off the page and right into his heart. “Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It entered with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again...” So here’s a foremost paradigm of language combining with the Spirit of God to the point of such revelatory effectiveness that it actually led to a dramatic, eye opening encounter with the source all truth, God the Father and Jesus Christ! So what’s new here? Nothing. It seems you may not appreciate that every member of the Church with a lick of sense already knows that language on its own cannot persuade the human mind to believe in or comprehend the transcendent. This controversy is unnecessary because your point is well taken and most easy to understand and accept — human language cannot effectively communicate the things of God without the enlightening power of the Spirit of God making an impact on the human mind. I can accept this without the slightest reservation because I know it’s true. Now all you have to say to end this debate on a point of agreement is that language can be an effective conveyer of truth as long as it is combined with the revelatory power of the Spirit, or Mind, of God (in the Lectures on Faith the prophet Joseph Smith equates the Spirit of God with the Mind of God’, and things don’t get any more spiritually enlightening than that!). Now I will concede that the optimal way to communicate truth would be with God’s perfect language in combination with the fullness of the Spirit of God. But while the combination of the English language, for example, and the Spirit of God may not communicate truth as effectively as God’s language in combination with the fulness of the Spirit, it’s at least effective enough for a great prophet of God to testify... “4 And when ye shall receive these things (the Book of Mormon translated into English), I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Someone gave me a book of Mormon, told me to read Moroni 10:4,5,6. I did. Thought about that for a couple of hours. I said to myself "these are ideas compatible with William James!" I prayed about it. God clobberd me big time. Huge spiritual experience. He knew I needed a BIG manifestation. I went to church the next Sunday, my first time. Grabbed a missionary and told him I wanted to be baptized. That was 1979. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 8 hours ago, teddyaware said: So here’s a foremost paradigm of language combining with the Spirit of God to the point of such revelatory effectiveness that it actually led to a dramatic, eye opening encounter with the source all truth, God the Father and Jesus Christ! So what’s new here? Nothing. It seems you may not appreciate that every member of the Church with a lick of sense already knows that language on its own cannot persuade the human mind to believe in or comprehend the transcendent. This controversy is unnecessary because your point is well taken and most easy to understand and accept — human language cannot effectively communicate the things of God without the enlightening power of the Spirit of God making an impact on the human mind. I can accept this without the slightest reservation because I know it’s true. Now all you have to say to end this debate on a point of agreement is that language can be an effective conveyer of truth as long as it is combined with the revelatory power of the Spirit, or Mind, of God (in the Lectures on Faith the prophet Joseph Smith equates the Spirit of God with the Mind of God’, and things don’t get any more spiritually enlightening than that!). Now I will concede that the optimal way to communicate truth would be with God’s perfect language in combination with the fullness of the Spirit of God. But while the combination of the English language, for example, and the Spirit of God may not communicate truth as effectively as God’s language in combination with the fulness of the Spirit, it’s at least effective enough for a great prophet of God to testify... Yes we agree then, great points. I need to change my style then I was writing for atheists who thought that the spirit of God is nonsense. All they see is what they erroneously think is their scientific reality WITHOUT the spirit is the only way to their variable truth of paradigms which can never "present" God or anything allegedly "subjective." But that spirit IS subjective in our hearts. All spiritual truth is then "subjective" but IF you erroneously thnk as an atheist, who thinks all truth is objective, believers then are deluded and unscientific. But as a believer, we believe in eternal truth, which is in our hearts and therefore unchanging for us. So the goal in dealing with atheists is to show them how bereft language is without the subjective personal experiential portion and it contains. It cannot describe the subjective "itch" of a mosquito bite, or the joy contained in a blue sky, or the surprise of a beautiful vista waiting beyond a turn in the road And it cannot capture God in three squiggles, to "re-present" Him, without the spirit. In the old days we actually had atheists here, but my writing style has not changed now that we have none Link to comment
blueglass Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 (edited) When I was asst ward mission leader I looked up a number of views by Christians on marriage from youtube searches i.e. Q&A with pastors and here is what I found regarding eternal marriage: Lutheran: Heaven: God's Feature Presentation-"will there be marriage in heaven?" "I don't know but if there is it will be great." GraceLife Christian: Mark 12:18-27 - Is There Marriage in Heaven? Luke 20:34 children of this world marry - obtain "that world" equal to the angels - children of the resurrection. 2Peter5 - willingly ignorant "No marriage in heaven - it's something you do here on earth" Angels are all male. Christian Missionary Alliance Ravi Zacharias : https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2014/january/ravi-zacharias-fernando-ortega-mormon-tabernacle-utah.html Jesus said no. Lazarus is in a state of bliss. At the resurrection glorified body - in his eternal presence transcendent gloriousness - all in an eternal presence and state. marriage is not the relationship of preeminence. New church: yes - marriage in heaven Orthodox church:https://www.pravmir.com/the-theology-of-christian-marriage/ The Orthodox marriage service is in two parts: the Betrothal and the Crowning. The Betrothal, in which the main feature is the exchange of rings, normally takes place in the narthex of the temple. It represents the natural marriage, marriage as a human institution, Even in Western Christian marriage rites, in the past the custom was for marriage to take place at the church door or porch. The prayers mention the betrothal of Isaac and Rebecca, and the priest, after blessing the rings, makes the sign of the cross over each of the parties three times, saying that “The servant of God "groom" is betrothed to the servant of God "bride", in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The priest then puts the bride’s ring on the bridegroom’s right hand, and the bridegroom’s ring on the bride’s right hand. This concludes the betrothal. Unlike Western marriage services, there is no exchange of vows, no legal contract that is ended by death “till death us do part”. The priest then leads the couple into the nave of the church, to the singing of a psalm, and the crowning service takes place in front of the royal doors, with more prayers. The crowns are placed on the heads of the bridegroom and bride, and, in some traditions, exchanged between them either by the priest or by the best man. The crowning expresses the distinctively Christian and sacramental aspect of marriage. The priest says “Crown them with glory and honour”, which recalls Psalm 8, and also Hebrews 2, in which the Psalm is quoted. This refers to fallen man restored to fellowship with God in Christ, and restored to rightful dominion over the earth. The couple are to be king and queen to each other, and their life together is to be a witness (martyria) to the kingdom of God, a little kingdom, and a little church, a cell of the Body of Christ. And so the crowns are also martyrs crowns, and this is referred to in the song that is sung as they circle the analogion three times anticlockwise https://orthodoxbridge.com/2014/05/16/concerning-eternal-marriage/ When the Lord spoke to the Sadducees about marriage in heaven (Mt. 22:23-33), He made it clear that “in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage.” That is, the earthly purposes of marriage, to suppress man’s licentiousness and to procreate, are irrelevant in the Kingdom. All the earthly concerns of a married couple: sexual intercourse, birth-giving, possessions, etc., are part of the “form of this world” which is passing away. “They are like the angels in of God heaven” (Mt. 22:30). But there is one aspect of marriage that is eternal: “Love never ends” (1 Cor. 13:8). St. John Chrysostom reminds us that married Christians are known to be such in the Judgment and in the Kingdom. We will recognize and delight in our spouses and in our children. We will be restored, not to marriage, but to something better, a union of souls, rather than bodies, a union that begins in marriage and reaches a far more sublime condition (cf. Chrysostom’s Letter to a Young Widow). This is why the Orthodox Church discourages (but does not prohibit) re-marriage after the death of a spouse. A second or third wedding ceremony (no fourth is allowed) has a somewhat penitential character, recognizing human weakness. St. John urged the young widow to whom he wrote to remain faithful to her husband (the title “husband” is used even after his death), in order to keep alive their bond of love, and eventually to be re-united with him. The Orthodox Church forbids re-marriage to widowed clergy, as a way of upholding this ideal. Baptist/Calvinist John Piper: "no marriage in heaven? Luke 20, Psalms 73:25-26 says "Whom have I in heaven but you? I desire you more than anything on earth. 26 My health may fail, and my spirit may grow weak, but God remains the strength of my heart; he is mine forever." However, everything you love about being married - will be there + - it's just going to be better, but no marriage in heaven, my father will not be a polygamist. My father had one wife for 25 years and one for 36 years Ruth and Lavon. He will know Ruth and Lavone and will have a love for them that will be, "supreme". Edited January 11, 2021 by blueglass 2 Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) On 1/8/2021 at 5:07 PM, teddyaware said: It causes one to wonder if the word of God can adequately represent reality? It does? Hmm, okay, then let's wonder about it. Let's pose it as a question in our own mind. Can the word of God adequately represent reality? In my own mind I further break down the question to this: Represent = cause me to think about and compare whatever I think about to whatever is being represented. Reality = what is/was/will be real and/or true. So now I have the question in my mind phrased in these words: Can the word of God cause me to think about reality/truth? AND/OR Can the word of God cause me to compare whatever I think about to whatever is being represented with words? So, uh, yeah. My answer is yes. So much for that wondering exercise. What will I wonder about next, I wonder. Edited January 11, 2021 by Ahab Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 On 1/9/2021 at 5:16 AM, teddyaware said: Here’s the problem with your analysis and your insistence that language is too imperfect to communicate eternal truth in an effective way: The fact of the matter is that your observations on the inadequacy of language are a given in the scriptures. There is nothing remarkable about anything you are saying on this subject; it’s all common knowledge that even an average LDS 12 year-old could do an adequate job of explaining. What is it? It’s that the thing that makes human language such a powerful conveyer of truth is reading or listening to the words of language with the revelatory aid of the Spirit of God. This is common knowledge, and aside from the testimony of Jesus it’s practically the whole burden of the scriptures. What is it? That language combined with the Spirit of God is a more than adequate and effective conveyer truth. There is no controversy here. The only real controversy is that you appear to be unwilling to accept the well attested scriptural fact that language combined with revelation from heaven is an effective communicator of truth. But perhaps I’ve got you wrong on this point? The prophet Joseph Smith said that when he was 14 years-old he was one day reading reading the epistle of James, first chapter and 5th verse and that the words jumped off the page and right into his heart. “Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It entered with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again...” So here’s a foremost paradigm of language combining with the Spirit of God to the point of such revelatory effectiveness that it actually led to a dramatic, eye opening encounter with the source all truth, God the Father and Jesus Christ! So what’s new here? Nothing. It seems you may not appreciate that every member of the Church with a lick of sense already knows that language on its own cannot persuade the human mind to believe in or comprehend the transcendent. This controversy is unnecessary because your point is well taken and most easy to understand and accept — human language cannot effectively communicate the things of God without the enlightening power of the Spirit of God making an impact on the human mind. I can accept this without the slightest reservation because I know it’s true. Now all you have to say to end this debate on a point of agreement is that language can be an effective conveyer of truth as long as it is combined with the revelatory power of the Spirit, or Mind, of God (in the Lectures on Faith the prophet Joseph Smith equates the Spirit of God with the Mind of God’, and things don’t get any more spiritually enlightening than that!). Now I will concede that the optimal way to communicate truth would be with God’s perfect language in combination with the fullness of the Spirit of God. But while the combination of the English language, for example, and the Spirit of God may not communicate truth as effectively as God’s language in combination with the fulness of the Spirit, it’s at least effective enough for a great prophet of God to testify... “4 And when ye shall receive these things (the Book of Mormon translated into English), I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Hmm, okay, so I've been pondering your words for a few minutes now and I'm wondering if you may have overlooked an even more basic point about the power of words. Must words be the words of God to adequately represent reality? Well. maybe that depends on what we mean when we use the phrase "the word of God" or "the words of God". If by that phrase we are simply referring to words of truth then I would say Yes, because words of deceit and lies do not represent reality. So let's try an example of some words of truth that someone may not ordinarily think of as being words of God. Words about something that most people would not ordinarily think of in a "religious" context, for example. How about just a simple statement like this: Words can represent reality by being words that refer to something that is real or true. How about that? Do we really need some kind of transcendent experience involving being filled with the spirit of God before we can see and understand the idea that words really can represent reality? Hmm, I suppose we might need to find someone who isn't filled with the spirit of God before we can know the answer to that question. Link to comment
teddyaware Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 42 minutes ago, Ahab said: Hmm, okay, so I've been pondering your words for a few minutes now and I'm wondering if you may have overlooked an even more basic point about the power of words. Must words be the words of God to adequately represent reality? Well. maybe that depends on what we mean when we use the phrase "the word of God" or "the words of God". If by that phrase we are simply referring to words of truth then I would say Yes, because words of deceit and lies do not represent reality. So let's try an example of some words of truth that someone may not ordinarily think of as being words of God. Words about something that most people would not ordinarily think of in a "religious" context, for example. How about just a simple statement like this: Words can represent reality by being words that refer to something that is real or true. How about that? Do we really need some kind of transcendent experience involving being filled with the spirit of God before we can see and understand the idea that words really can represent reality? Hmm, I suppose we might need to find someone who isn't filled with the spirit of God before we can know the answer to that question. At very least, humans need the light of Christ — that light that lights every man that comes into the world — in order to be able to discern truth from error. Without the input, enlightenment and inspiration of the Spirit God, even in its less powerful manifestations, the fallen human mind is utterly incapable of discerning truth from error. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, teddyaware said: At very least, humans need the light of Christ — that light that lights every man that comes into the world — in order to be able to discern truth from error. Without the input, enlightenment and inspiration of the Spirit God, even in its less powerful manifestations, the fallen human mind is utterly incapable of discerning truth from error. Exactly. The words are not conveying truth, that light in our hearts conveys truth. It is the Light - that indescribable that allows communication between us, which is what was confounded at Babel due to putting the pride of man ahead of listening to God- that speaks truth. President Benson: Pride is enmity toward God. It is the pride of man that broke that communication And confounded our language. We only speak half truths, the other half, spirit, is missing. Seeing only material without the Light in it, seeing people as mechanical objects created by chemical reactions etc. is what separates us from seeing them as they are - spiritual entities clothed in flesh temporarily. We need a science that does not just look at appearances but sees the true reality of the spirit encased in matter, even in things. Remember that matter and spirit are one, but our society just looks at the appearance half of reality, where a truly Radical Empiricism would see both See William James Radical Empiricism Edited January 11, 2021 by mfbukowski Link to comment
teddyaware Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Exactly. The words are not conveying truth, that light in our hearts conveys truth. It is the Light - that indescribable that allows communication between us, which is what was confounded at Babel due to putting the pride of man ahead of listening to God- that speaks truth. President Benson: Pride is enmity toward God. It is the pride of man that broke that communication And confounded our language. We only speak half truths, the other half, spirit, is missing. Seeing only material without the Light in it, seeing people as mechanical objects created by chemical reactions etc. is what separates us from seeing them as they are - spiritual entities clothed in flesh temporarily. We need a science that does not just look at appearances but sees the true reality of the spirit encased in matter, even in things. Remember that matter and spirit are one, but our society just looks at the appearance half of reality, where a truly Radical Empiricism would see both See William James Radical Empiricism In 2 Nephi 9, the prophet Jacob testifies that if there had been no infinite and eternal atonement of God made after the fall of man that there would be only one influence working upon the spirit of man, and that would be the spirit of total darkness and error. Jacob, makes it perfectly plain that without the atonement of Christ all mankind would unavoidably and inexorably descend into hell, the realm of total spiritual darkness, and become slaves to the devil. This means that without the atoning sacrifice of Christ to effectively counterbalance the entropic effects of the fall, it would be impossible for men to know the truth from falsehood, good from evil, and right from wrong. What a blessing it is to know that every time we chose to respond to that inner light of God in righteous, whether it be in response to inspiration from the light of Christ or revelation the Holy Ghost, we are, in reality, receiving revelation from God. This helps us to know that God is never as far us as we might think, for as long as there is even the slightest desire to think and do aright God is there.. It also serves to demystify the process of revelation, for every time a man chooses to do something good for the right reason, the light and power of God are made manifest in the thoughts leading up to the act and in the act itself. In other words, the Church is awash in revelation among the honest and faithful. Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, teddyaware said: At very least, humans need the light of Christ — that light that lights every man that comes into the world — in order to be able to discern truth from error. Without the input, enlightenment and inspiration of the Spirit God, even in its less powerful manifestations, the fallen human mind is utterly incapable of discerning truth from error. Ah, yes, but I was talking about the power of the words, themselves. Words actually represent something, or in some cases some things, and the words themselves are what refer to or represent those things. What you're talking about now is something specific which helps us or enables us to see and/or understand what the words themselves mean or refer to or what the words represent. A "light" of some sort, which you refer to as "the light of Christ" which you also say is that same light which lights the way for every other man (and woman) who comes into this world. So several things are at work or at play here when we first see words and then see them with that light which enables us or helps us to see what the words represent, whether they represent reality/truth or a distortion of reality/truth. Light and truth working together, or a lack of light and/or truth. And what else do we call light and truth, combined, working together? Surely we would have come up with a word or a name for that by now. D&C 93:36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. And what is truth? Well what do you know, our Lord told us through Joseph in that very same D&C: 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; Knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come... knowledge of those things... knowledge of those things in reality... in whatever time they are or were or will be. So on one hand we have or can have the intelligence which enables us to see and/or understand truth/reality and on the other hand we simply do not have that intelligence because of... some reason...hmm, maybe because something or someone took that intelligence from us or somehow prevented us from attaining a particular level of intelligence which would have enabled us to see and/or understand truth/reality... with intelligence used as a word to represent glory... the glory of God. edited to add a link to the D & 😄https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng Edited January 11, 2021 by Ahab Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 20 minutes ago, Ahab said: Ah, yes, but I was talking about the power of the words, themselves. Words actually represent something, or in some cases some things, and the words themselves are what refer to or represent those things. What you're talking about now is something specific which helps us or enables us to see and/or understand what the words themselves mean or refer to or what the words represent. A "light" of some sort, which you refer to as "the light of Christ" which you also say is that same light which lights the way for every other man (and woman) who comes into this world. So several things are at work or at play here when we first see words and then see them with that light which enables us or helps us to see what the words represent, whether they represent reality/truth or a distortion of reality/truth. Light and truth working together, or a lack of light and/or truth. And what else do we call light and truth, combined, working together? Surely we would have come up with a word or a name for that by now. D&C 93:36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. And what is truth? Well what do you know, our Lord told us through Joseph in that very same D&C: 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; Knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come... knowledge of those things... knowledge of those things in reality... in whatever time they are or were or will be. So on one hand we have or can have the intelligence which enables us to see and/or understand truth/reality and on the other hand we simply do not have that intelligence because of... some reason...hmm, maybe because something or someone took that intelligence from us or somehow prevented us from attaining a particular level of intelligence which would have enabled us to see and/or understand truth/reality... with intelligence used as a word to represent glory... the glory of God. Words only convey false cultural appearance and hive agreement, unless one is bearing testimony or speaking of qualia. Qualia is the mental/spiritual in matter. It is the experience of blue that cannot be conveyed by words. Experience including the qualia portion of the continuum is reality, where hive language expresses only communal experience which by definition makes it "objective" The subjective is the spirit/mental/qualia portion. Look up "qualia philosophy " Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 53 minutes ago, teddyaware said: ...made after the fall of man that there would be only one influence working upon the spirit of man, and that would be the spirit of total darkness and error. Jacob, makes it perfectly plain that without the atonement of Christ all mankind would unavoidably and inexorably descend into hell, the realm of total spiritual darkness, and become slaves to the devil. This means that without the atoning sacrifice of Christ to effectively counterbalance the entropic effects of the fall, it would be impossible for men to know the truth from falsehood, good from evil, and right from wrong. Omigosh! Christ as the Organizer of the universe- no Organizer = total entropy, and that is what we see today, every man for him/her/favorite pronoun/ self. Clear as a bell, thanks! Link to comment
Stargazer Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 On 12/31/2020 at 3:30 PM, Tacenda said: I think more non LDS married people think they're going to be together than LDS people do! Our religion has put so much emphasis on the subject that it's ingrained that if a family member strays or doesn't get married in the temple they won't be with their eternal family. They'll be in another heaven. That is the most damaging. Damaging in what way? Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Words only convey false cultural appearance and hive agreement, unless one is bearing testimony or speaking of qualia. Qualia is the mental/spiritual in matter. It is the experience of blue that cannot be conveyed by words. Experience including the qualia portion of the continuum is reality, where hive language expresses only communal experience which by definition makes it "objective" The subjective is the spirit/mental/qualia portion. Look up "qualia philosophy " You're talking about what words "convey" and I'm talking about what words "represent" as symbols. When I use the word blue such as when I say something is blue I am not thinking they the person(s) I say that to should see what I am talking about as if that object is what blue is. I am simply thinking that object represents an example of what blue is. For example, when I say the sky is blue on a pretty sunny day I am not thinking that "blue" and "sky" are synonyms. Are you? Or would you think I would need to explain that difference to someone? Like I am trying to explain to you right now? Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Omigosh! Christ as the Organizer of the universe- no Organizer = total entropy, and that is what we see today, every man for him/her/favorite pronoun/ self. Clear as a bell, thanks! Or you could also think of "intelligence" as what organizes the universe, where a lack of intelligence would leave matter unorganized. no organizer = no organization = chaos = not good Edited January 11, 2021 by Ahab Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: You're talking about what words "convey" and I'm talking about what words "represent" as symbols. When I use the word blue such as when I say something is blue I am not thinking they the person(s) I say that to should see what I am talking about as if that object is what blue is. I am simply thinking that object represents an example of what blue is. For example, when I say the sky is blue on a pretty sunny day I am not thinking that "blue" and "sky" are synonyms. Are you? Or would you think I would need to explain that difference to someone? Like I am trying to explain to you right now? Read this. https://iep.utm.edu/qualia/#:~:text=Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences.&text=Qualia have traditionally been thought,or both of those features. Link to comment
teddyaware Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Omigosh! Christ as the Organizer of the universe- no Organizer = total entropy, and that is what we see today, every man for him/her/favorite pronoun/ self. Clear as a bell, thanks! It is true that people can increasingly forsake the light of God until it gets to the point where it’s “as if there were no atonement made.” Just because there is an atonement, and all are born with the light of Christ, doesn’t necessarily mean that all will hold on to these blessings forever. 1 Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: Read this. https://iep.utm.edu/qualia/#:~:text=Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences.&text=Qualia have traditionally been thought,or both of those features. I'd rather stick with common sense and normal words than to get into all of that philosophical mumbo-jumbo talk. Link to comment
teddyaware Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Ah, yes, but I was talking about the power of the words, themselves. Words actually represent something, or in some cases some things, and the words themselves are what refer to or represent those things. What you're talking about now is something specific which helps us or enables us to see and/or understand what the words themselves mean or refer to or what the words represent. A "light" of some sort, which you refer to as "the light of Christ" which you also say is that same light which lights the way for every other man (and woman) who comes into this world. So several things are at work or at play here when we first see words and then see them with that light which enables us or helps us to see what the words represent, whether they represent reality/truth or a distortion of reality/truth. Light and truth working together, or a lack of light and/or truth. And what else do we call light and truth, combined, working together? Surely we would have come up with a word or a name for that by now. D&C 93:36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. And what is truth? Well what do you know, our Lord told us through Joseph in that very same D&C: 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; Knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come... knowledge of those things... knowledge of those things in reality... in whatever time they are or were or will be. So on one hand we have or can have the intelligence which enables us to see and/or understand truth/reality and on the other hand we simply do not have that intelligence because of... some reason...hmm, maybe because something or someone took that intelligence from us or somehow prevented us from attaining a particular level of intelligence which would have enabled us to see and/or understand truth/reality... with intelligence used as a word to represent glory... the glory of God. edited to add a link to the D & 😄https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng Please try to distill what you’re saying above into one or two clear and succinct sentences because I’m not quite sure what point is that you’re trying to make? 1 Link to comment
Ahab Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, teddyaware said: Please try to distill what you’re saying above into one or two clear and succinct sentences because I’m not quite sure what point is that you’re trying to make? Uh, wow, well, okay, try this: we all need both light + truth to see and/or understand what words refer to or represent. Intelligence = light + truth = the glory of God Link to comment
Recommended Posts