What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I am only saying that I too have similar promptings by the Spirit. It is a blessing one can have either inside or outside the Church.  You don't have to be a member of the Church to get promptings of the Spirit.  If Church members believe that, it is a myth.

Not only a myth, but self contradictory. How could nonmembers be inspired to join the church if the Spirit only communicates with members?

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I've followed the thread only here and there, so this may be repetitious, but wanted to respond to the part in bold. First I agree with others who note it's sometimes better for individuals to leave the church in order to find greater healing. I've seen it for varying reasons and honor that choice. I've only met a handful of people who fit into the category you describe. All of these were not close and were what they stated in semi-public forums (albeit usually small groups). All of them mentioned something close to what gillebre mentioned: a profound relationship with God and deciding to follow no matter what. The one that stuck with me the most was Tom Christofferson, who both noted the pain of losing his partner of 20 years, but had one of the most powerful testimonies of Christ I'd experienced at that point in my life. 

Later on I like to believe I experienced something (more mildly) similar to that...though in a very different manner. I was prompted over and over again to stay in a relationship that I knew was unhealthy. (this ironically was happening when I hear Tom Christofferson's testimony). It wasn't a short period either...it continued on and off again for years and I knew at some point in it that what kept me there were strong promptings by God to stay. It was miserable. But it also turned out to be a necessary fire to forge and change me for the better. Who I became after was so different than who I'd been and my relationship with God was cemented in a way I didn't know it could have been. I remember distinctly after it was all done that I was alone, but I wasn't lonely...I had been filled by God in a way I couldn't have without a painful journey. And It opened doors and capacities for me to continue to grow and become better now.

Having a very healthy relationship now with a man I love, I very much realize just how big of a blessing that is in so many ways. But the experiences I had before meeting him taught me that what mattered most was my relationship with God. That said, I am no judge of another's promptings and I am not about to insist others do likewise. That is not a sacrifice I can ask or insist someone else make...doing so IMHO usually leads to a more inauthentic relationship towards God that can be more damaging than good. 

 

With luv,

BD 

I think this is part of the learning process for gaining the principle Elder Holland shared in his October 2021 General Conference talk:  “When difficult things are asked of us, even things contrary to the longings of our heart, remember that the loyalty we pledge to the cause of Christ is to be the supreme devotion of our lives.”

I have also found that not judging another's promptings helps us find common ground on some other worthwhile point that might be built upon to nurture unity rather than contention. 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/6/2021 at 11:47 AM, MrShorty said:

Or, perhaps to put it this way, as it might apply to the topic at hand: If there is a path to salvation and exaltation that passes through a committed, monogamous same sex marriage (or gender transitioning or whatever), why would we as a Church not embrace that path? Why would we send LGBT people and couples off to find and follow their path to salvation and exaltation outside of the Church?

I agree totally with the sentiment, but there is a logical flaw here, caused by that pesky word IF.

Unfortunately one cannot prove either way, logically, IF there IS such a path, or if there is NOT such a path.  So one is stuck with testimony on either side, and/or the words of prophets IF one believes such a view, including theism.

Too many IFs for my brain, thank you.

So overall, without a justified basis for believing such a position, and considering the ton of Biblical and other allegedly prophetic statements to the contrary, I think staying in the church is not the course I would pursue if I were not willing to give up same sex relationships.

Face it.

It just doesn't work in the COJCLDS

 🤔🤨

Edited October 8, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not only a myth, but self contradictory. How could nonmembers be inspired to join the church if the Spirit only communicates with members?

That is definitely how I gained my conviction to join. And in the five years of waiting, I may have gained certain advantages (endurance, information), but nothing close what I gained after baptism and confirmation (additional ordinances and the service opportunities, justification, sanctification, etc. that followed -- albeit at a snail's pace! -- thereafter). To me, that illustrates the difference between salvation and exaltation, and between the gospel and the fullness of the gospel. Some pearls are simply of greater price than others!

[CV75]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree totally with the sentiment, but there is a logical flaw here, caused by that pesky word IF.

Unfortunately one cannot prove either way, logically, IF there IS such a path, or if there is NOT such a path.  So one is stuck with testimony on either side, and/or the words of prophets IF one believes such a view, including theism.

Too many IFs for my brain, thank you.

So overall, without a justified basis for believing such a position, and considering the ton of Biblical and other allegedly prophetic statements to the contrary, I think staying in the church is not the course I would pursue if I were not willing to give up same sex relationships.

Face it.

It just doesn't work in the COJCLDS

 🤔🤨

This is why I tell people, even loved ones, that I will not tell them their spiritual conviction is not of God though I believe it is wrong. The reason I give is that our conversations cannot be productive if there is contest and contention. I often suggest we explore the issue at hand together  and see what we find, but they have usually already made up their mind without my participation  (for now, fingers crossed!).

[california boy]

19 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I've followed the thread only here and there, so this may be repetitious, but wanted to respond to the part in bold. First I agree with others who note it's sometimes better for individuals to leave the church in order to find greater healing. I've seen it for varying reasons and honor that choice. I've only met a handful of people who fit into the category you describe. All of these were not close and were what they stated in semi-public forums (albeit usually small groups). All of them mentioned something close to what gillebre mentioned: a profound relationship with God and deciding to follow no matter what. The one that stuck with me the most was Tom Christofferson, who both noted the pain of losing his partner of 20 years, but had one of the most powerful testimonies of Christ I'd experienced at that point in my life. 

Later on I like to believe I experienced something (more mildly) similar to that...though in a very different manner. I was prompted over and over again to stay in a relationship that I knew was unhealthy. (this ironically was happening when I hear Tom Christofferson's testimony). It wasn't a short period either...it continued on and off again for years and I knew at some point in it that what kept me there were strong promptings by God to stay. It was miserable. But it also turned out to be a necessary fire to forge and change me for the better. Who I became after was so different than who I'd been and my relationship with God was cemented in a way I didn't know it could have been. I remember distinctly after it was all done that I was alone, but I wasn't lonely...I had been filled by God in a way I couldn't have without a painful journey. And It opened doors and capacities for me to continue to grow and become better now.

Having a very healthy relationship now with a man I love, I very much realize just how big of a blessing that is in so many ways. But the experiences I had before meeting him taught me that what mattered most was my relationship with God. That said, I am no judge of another's promptings and I am not about to insist others do likewise. That is not a sacrifice I can ask or insist someone else make...doing so IMHO usually leads to a more inauthentic relationship towards God that can be more damaging than good. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  I always appreciate your comments.  

In many ways, I feel like the Church was the crucible that made me who I am today.  I still appreciate all of the experiences and wisdom that I got attending all of those years.  To a large extent, it is why I participate on this board.  I am interested in how members deal with issues that come up.  I also feel like I can offer a different point of view to many of the issues, especially LGBT issues.   I hope that I am able to at least offer something to think about.   I don't comment a lot on most of the threads because my point of view isn't really needed.  But I do read many of them.  

 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is why I tell people, even loved ones, that I will not tell them their spiritual conviction is not of God though I believe it is wrong. The reason I give is that our conversations cannot be productive if there is contest and contention. I often suggest we explore the issue at hand together  and see what we find, but they have usually already made up their mind without my participation  (for now, fingers crossed!).

I think the main problem most folks have is trusting their testimonies as being actually from God.   The question is always "How do I know this is from God or not just heartburn?"

We don't want to admit it, but in my experience, there was a period of "exploration" I had in my life, that if I had never experienced, I don't think I would be part of the church today.  It was necessary for ME to actually become an atheist for me to answer the "heartburn" question.   That is, I had to prove to myself that God did NOT exist so that when a real spiritual experience hit be between the eyes, I could not deny it was not "actually" from God.  It had to be an answer that I could NOT doubt came from an Intelligence outside of myself.

So the bottom line is that God teaches us the best way He can to get us into the fold.

If He has to teach us how to be an atheist as one of the steps, I think that He will do that.   It's an individual tutoring from Father himself.

So sometimes we need to simply be kind to those who are drifiting and let them go their way- because what may appear to be "their" way may actually be God's way in the end.

And of course this all relates to the "your truth- my truth" relativity question.  Ultimately as we mature, we grow our understanding of the importance of contextual truth as Kevin C has taught us here with his references to stages of intellectual progression toward relativism.

Since we see through a glass darkly, we must learn to catch the flickers of truth that DO make it through the dark glass that we always thought WAS "reality as it really is", and just let God be our personal tutor.

Think of exploring a room in total darkness.

Exploring in darkness makes finding the light much easier, when we start catching the small glimmers and reflections that point to the actual source of light!

[CV75]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the main problem most folks have is trusting their testimonies as being actually from God.   The question is always "How do I know this is from God or not just heartburn?"

We don't want to admit it, but in my experience, there was a period of "exploration" I had in my life, that if I had never experienced, I don't think I would be part of the church today.  It was necessary for ME to actually become an atheist for me to answer the "heartburn" question.   That is, I had to prove to myself that God did NOT exist so that when a real spiritual experience hit be between the eyes, I could not deny it was not "actually" from God.  It had to be an answer that I could NOT doubt came from an Intelligence outside of myself.

So the bottom line is that God teaches us the best way He can to get us into the fold.

If He has to teach us how to be an atheist as one of the steps, I think that He will do that.   It's an individual tutoring from Father himself.

So sometimes we need to simply be kind to those who are drifiting and let them go their way- because what may appear to be "their" way may actually be God's way in the end.

And of course this all relates to the "your truth- my truth" relativity question.  Ultimately as we mature, we grow our understanding of the importance of contextual truth as Kevin C has taught us here with his references to stages of intellectual progression toward relativism.

Since we see through a glass darkly, we must learn to catch the flickers of truth that DO make it through the dark glass that we always thought WAS "reality as it really is", and just let God be our personal tutor.

Think of exploring a room in total darkness.

Exploring in darkness makes finding the light much easier, when we start catching the small glimmers and reflections that point to the actual source of light!

I think this demonstrates the necessity of coming into a fallen world where God is not found in order to find Him. Why this step when we had obviously found and knew Him before coming to earth; why need to go through having to find Him again under a separate set of circumstances? To find “greater happiness, peace and rest.”

I’m not sure if I would call drifting away from Him God’s way, but it is His way to reconcile all the ways we might possibly drift in this fallen world of probation, which is His way. This is an extension of my belief that sometimes there is (almost by definition) no reason or explanation to be found in the perplexing (or chaotic, or random) situations we face, but there is always a solution, eventually, in His redemption. I think perhaps you would not have found God to this extent had you not come into the fallen world, or if you had come here and nor tried to figure anything out.

Not to speak for you, but I might suggest your adoption of atheism was the result of your best efforts in a fallen world with the fallen resources you were given, but that the light of Christ shined through that. That cannot happen if we are not trying to do our best with what we’ve got, no matter how wrong we may be.  Granted, I am not you! and so I only offer this perspective in the event it helps in some other course you may take.

Likewise, all the other things we can (or cannot) figure out with these fallen brains pale to that light once we find it (again). Spiritual experience is not, and comes despite, a rational process.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/9/2021 at 6:28 PM, CV75 said:

Not to speak for you, but I might suggest your adoption of atheism was the result of your best efforts in a fallen world with the fallen resources you were given, but that the light of Christ shined through that. That cannot happen if we are not trying to do our best with what we’ve got, no matter how wrong we may be.  Granted, I am not you! and so I only offer this perspective in the event it helps in some other course you may take.

Likewise, all the other things we can (or cannot) figure out with these fallen brains pale to that light once we find it (again). Spiritual experience is not, and comes despite, a rational process.

Yes thanks this first quoted paragraph nails it perfectly.

Otoh, I think my fixation with Rorty et al is all about showing that religious experience IS as rational a process as any other. 

It IS what James called Radical Empiricism.

It is the only logical conclusion to the realization that EVERYTHING we know is "just in our heads".

Where else would it be?

Is there anything you know that you don't know?

That is the contradiction of confusing observation with "reality "

I experience God as much as I experience anything.

THAT is radical empiricism.

Empiricism is is restricting reality to human experience, humans experience God, therefore God is real.

Are not feelings real?

The bifurcation between appearance/experience and reality is seriously problematic 

Edited October 13, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes thanks this first quoted paragraph nails it perfectly.

Otoh, I think my fixation with Rorty et al is all about showing that religious experience IS as rational a process as any other. 

It IS what James called Radical Empiricism.

It is the only logical conclusion to the realization that EVERYTHING we know is "just in our heads".

Where else would it be?

Is there anything you know that you don't know?

That is the contradiction of confusing observation with "reality "

I experience God as much as I experience anything.

THAT is radical empiricism.

Empiricism is is restricting reality to human experience, humans experience God, therefore God is real.

Are not feelings real?

The bifurcation between appearance/experience and reality is seriously problematic 

Absolutely re: the bold, and it is a fine fixation!

"...religious experience IS as rational a process as any other." -- I would say "religious experience is the product of as rational a process as any other experience is" -- the processes are the conscious tools and methods we use, and the more automatic mechanical and chemical activities we are subject to, to think and experience (it all takes place in our brains), and the spiritual experience (or lack thereof) is the "non-rational" product, similar to emotions or instincts.

Edited October 13, 2021 by CV75

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely re: the bold, and it is a fine fixation!

"...religious experience IS as rational a process as any other." -- I would say "religious experience is the product of as rational a process as any other experience is" -- the processes are the conscious tools and methods we use, and the more automatic mechanical and chemical activities we are subject to, to think and experience (it all takes place in our brains), and the spiritual experience (or lack thereof) is the "non-rational" product, similar to emotions or instincts.

My first mystical experiences took place in the context of the Native American Church (with peyote). From there, God led me to Catholicism. My first Christian mystical experiences occurred while on retreat at a Benedictine monastery. The abbot had taken me under his wing during that time, so to speak, and suggested I read New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton. It was exactly what I needed at that time. In Catholicism, contemplation and contemplative prayer are the equivalents of meditation that leads to mystical experience.

The book opens with thoughts on what mystical/religious experience is, and I think it is appropriate for this discussion as he includes the ideas of faith, reason, and reality. Substitute "contemplation" with "religious experience." Here's the opening paragraph:

Quote

CONTEMPLATION is the highest expression of man's in­tellectual and spiritual life. It is that life itself, fully awake, fully active, fully aware that it is alive. It is spiritual wonder. It is spontaneous awe at the sacredness of life, of being. It is gratitude for life, for awareness and for being. It is a vivid realization of the fact that life and being in us proceed from an invisible, transcendent and infinitely abundant Source. Con­templation is, above all, awareness of the reality of that Source. It knows the Source, obscurely, inexplicably, but with a certitude that goes both beyond reason and beyond simple faith. For contemplation is a kind of spiritual vision to which both reason and faith aspire, by their very nature, because without it they must always remain incomplete. Yet contemplation is not vision be­cause it sees "without seeing" and knows "without know­ing." It is a more profound depth of faith, a knowledge too deep to be grasped in images, in words or even in clear concepts. It can be suggested by words, by symbols, but in the very moment of trying to indicate what it knows the contemplative mind takes back what it has said, and denies what it has affirmed. For in contemplation we know by "unknowing." Or, better, we know beyond all knowing or "unknowing."

I understand @mfbukowski's project to show that Mormonism is compatible with Humanism and contemporary(-ish) philosophy. I agree that 99.9% of experience happens in our head. However, my mystical experiences have granted me knowledge of the reality of God as the Source (as Merton writes) from which being flows. He is both in me and out of me, both immanent and transcendent. This knowledge comes with "a certitude that goes both beyond reason and beyond simple faith." It's hard for me to describe, but it is an experience that shows I know something that is beyond experience. I know that sounds contradictory, but I don't know how else to say it. It is beyond logic, beyond knowing, beyond words and sentences, yet is true.

One such experience happened at Our Lady of Guadalupe monastery many years ago. I had already been at the monastery for probably 4 or 5 days. We were praying Matins, one of the 7 canonical hours where everyone goes to the chapel to pray. It is a long prayer, about 2 hours, and begins around 3:30 AM. It is sung in Gregorian chant. Perhaps an hour or so into prayer, everything seemed to contract and expand (I know, contradiction, but it's so hard to describe). I felt my depths open. The prayer seemed to be praying me instead of the usual other way around. I felt an expansiveness that was pure love and being. I was me but not me, in me and out of me. Everything was flowing, emanating, arising from God. I knew this with a certainty. I was experiencing it, yes, but it was more than an experience. It was beyond experience. Again, I know that doesn't make sense, but I had an experience that showed me there are truths and realities beyond experience. It's happened many times. It's always been an experience of God. He is a reality beyond experience.

I guess this was my testimony, ha  

Edited October 13, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[CV75]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

My first mystical experiences took place in the context of the Native American Church (with peyote). From there, God led me to Catholicism. My first Christian mystical experiences occurred while on retreat at a Benedictine monastery. The abbot had taken me under his wing during that time, so to speak, and suggested I read New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton. It was exactly what I needed at that time. In Catholicism, contemplation and contemplative prayer are the equivalents of meditation that leads to mystical experience.

The book opens with thoughts on what mystical/religious experience is, and I think it is appropriate for this discussion as he includes the ideas of faith, reason, and reality. Substitute "contemplation" with "religious experience." Here's the opening paragraph:

I understand @mfbukowski's project to show that Mormonism is compatible with Humanism and contemporary(-ish) philosophy. I agree that 99.9% of experience happens in our head. However, my mystical experiences have granted me knowledge of the reality of God as the Source (as Merton writes) from which being flows. He is both in me and out of me, both immanent and transcendent. This knowledge comes with "a certitude that goes both beyond reason and beyond simple faith." It's hard for me to describe, but it is an experience that shows I know something that is beyond experience. I know that sounds contradictory, but I don't know how else to say it. It is beyond logic, beyond knowing, beyond words and sentences, yet is true.

One such experience happened at Our Lady of Guadalupe monastery many years ago. I had already been at the monastery for probably 4 or 5 days. We were praying Matins, one of the 7 canonical hours where everyone goes to the chapel to pray. It is a long prayer, about 2 hours, and begins around 3:30 AM. It is sung in Gregorian chant. Perhaps an hour or so into prayer, everything seemed to contract and expand (I know, contradiction, but it's so hard to describe). I felt my depths open. The prayer seemed to be praying me instead of the usual other way around. I felt an expansiveness that was pure love and being. I was me but not me, in me and out of me. Everything was flowing, emanating, arising from God. I knew this with a certainty. I was experiencing it, yes, but it was more than an experience. It was beyond experience. Again, I know that doesn't make sense, but I had an experience that showed me there are truths and realities beyond experience. It's happened many times. It's always been an experience of God. He is a reality beyond experience.

I guess this was my testimony, ha  

I find this to be a very interesting description of contemplation; rather, a very interesting description of an experience represented by the word “contemplation.”

What you describe might be thought of as having two brains: one brain that interprets [“knows”] something as outside its experience, and that is known [“experienced”] by the other brain. This reminds me of a passage in 3 Nephi 19: “And tongue cannot speak the words which he prayed, neither can be written by man the words which he prayed [this is the experience of using the first brain]. And the multitude did hear and do bear record; and their hearts were open and they did understand in their hearts the words which he prayed [this is the experience of using the second brain]. Nevertheless, so great and marvelous were the words which he prayed [as understood by using the second brain] that they cannot be written, neither can they be uttered by man [using the first brain].”

Déjà vu is often explained as split perception, delayed processing, or implicit memory and in a way, I think spiritual or religious experiences such as you described and as recorded in 3 Nephi might be forms of these. In some ways we have one brain/mind acting as two, and in other ways we have two brains/minds acting as one. We are compounds (putting it religiously, spirit and element), since “all things [in this case, “brains”] have their likeness …both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual…” and “the Lord God, created all things …spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.”

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

My first mystical experiences took place in the context of the Native American Church (with peyote). From there, God led me to Catholicism. My first Christian mystical experiences occurred while on retreat at a Benedictine monastery. The abbot had taken me under his wing during that time, so to speak, and suggested I read New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton. It was exactly what I needed at that time. In Catholicism, contemplation and contemplative prayer are the equivalents of meditation that leads to mystical experience.

The book opens with thoughts on what mystical/religious experience is, and I think it is appropriate for this discussion as he includes the ideas of faith, reason, and reality. Substitute "contemplation" with "religious experience." Here's the opening paragraph:

I understand @mfbukowski's project to show that Mormonism is compatible with Humanism and contemporary(-ish) philosophy. I agree that 99.9% of experience happens in our head. However, my mystical experiences have granted me knowledge of the reality of God as the Source (as Merton writes) from which being flows. He is both in me and out of me, both immanent and transcendent. This knowledge comes with "a certitude that goes both beyond reason and beyond simple faith." It's hard for me to describe, but it is an experience that shows I know something that is beyond experience. I know that sounds contradictory, but I don't know how else to say it. It is beyond logic, beyond knowing, beyond words and sentences, yet is true.

One such experience happened at Our Lady of Guadalupe monastery many years ago. I had already been at the monastery for probably 4 or 5 days. We were praying Matins, one of the 7 canonical hours where everyone goes to the chapel to pray. It is a long prayer, about 2 hours, and begins around 3:30 AM. It is sung in Gregorian chant. Perhaps an hour or so into prayer, everything seemed to contract and expand (I know, contradiction, but it's so hard to describe). I felt my depths open. The prayer seemed to be praying me instead of the usual other way around. I felt an expansiveness that was pure love and being. I was me but not me, in me and out of me. Everything was flowing, emanating, arising from God. I knew this with a certainty. I was experiencing it, yes, but it was more than an experience. It was beyond experience. Again, I know that doesn't make sense, but I had an experience that showed me there are truths and realities beyond experience. It's happened many times. It's always been an experience of God. He is a reality beyond experience.

I guess this was my testimony, ha  

This is absolutely beautiful and thank you for it, and I feel I understand and have experienced "this" - but my version of it and can relate to it strongly.

This captures poetically what it is to have a spiritual experience, in its beauty!

Now let me get into what I see as the problem, not with the post, but with the language itself, which you had no choice to use, since language IS how we humans communicate, as ineffctive as it is!

Now suppose, being a philosopher, you have taken it upon yourself to express all that you have expressed, and yet do it in a mode which is called "logical", in order to communicate with other philosophers.  Nasty task.  In other words, use other words. 

The way that is done, or has been done, is to "take it up a notch" into a realm of abstraction which enables you to account for the apparent contradictions which appear at the poetic level, in which the piece is now written.   Poetry as you have written, full of emotional expressions and the heart blood of the experience, is not "logical"- and actually requires leaving logic behind in favor of being able to communicate the depth and richness of the experience.

On the other hand, the task before you as a philosopher, is to write it in such a level of abstraction that transcends the poetry and is yet consistent logically.  In other words, no paradoxes.  Paradoxes are great for conveying feelings and can be VERY powerful, but in philosophy?   No Bueno! 

Quote

 

I agree that 99.9% of experience happens in our head. However, my mystical experiences have granted me knowledge of the reality of God as the Source (as Merton writes) from which being flows. He is both in me and out of me, both immanent and transcendent. This knowledge comes with "a certitude that goes both beyond reason and beyond simple faith." It's hard for me to describe, but it is an experience that shows I know something that is beyond experience. I know that sounds contradictory, but I don't know how else to say it. It is beyond logic, beyond knowing, beyond words and sentences, yet is true.

 

I agree with this 100%, but as you admit, it is not "logical".

Language is NOT reality- it is automatically separated from reality because it is symbolic.  In 26 squiggles, Language presumes to tell all truth and experience known to mankind.   Good luck!

Please excuse me now for trying to express your transcendent poetry into the language of immanent logic. 

Yes, the idea of God as the source of experiences like yours is right on the money.  NOTE that Rorty points that out. 

Quote

To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. 

So for me, as I read it, 100% of all experience, not 99%, strictly speaking IS a mental state- after all no one around you was having the exact same experience at the same time you were- or at least that is what my paradigm suggests.   But Who was the SOURCE of that experience within YOUR being?  I would of course agree with you that it was God himself.

I ultimately think that this, though it may seem trivial, is what places spiritual experience on the same "level" of rationality as ANY OTHER "scientific" or "empirical" experience.

Under the right circumstances, you had an experience indicating something (the existence of God, and more) and that something is the cause of your mental state, or observation/experience.

Under the right circumstances, the scientist has an experience in the lab, reading the whatsdatstuff meter as reading 16.3472, the cause of which is something outside his mental state, indicating to him the presence of some substance perhaps.

Yet where did both experiences occur?  Were the experiences out there in the world, or within the being itself making the observation/having the experience?  How did the world change for these individuals making these observations?   The scientist may have just discovered the cause of cancer and you may have just fully experienced God.  But what is the effects on the world around each person?  None, at least at this time.   And so I hope it is easier to understand that 100% of experiences happen in the observer, and not in the "world" around them.

And so we have a similar problem with "immanent" and "transcendent" as words.   Poetically I get it totally and agree with you.  God is both our immanent Father in a very human way- we can go to Him with our troubles etc, and He does and will, help us.  On the other hand, he is so far beyond us, he might well be described as "transcendent", poetically.

But describing Him as BOTH is like saying that a car is simultaneously white and black at the same time!  Philosophically, I think that makes no sense.

For my money, the best option is for one to describe one's experiences of what He as done in one's life, and allow the reader to decide what words fit, if one is speaking philosophically.

This may come off as a pedantic rant over grammatic details of language, perhaps correctly.   But for me, it is an attempt to explore different ways of using language about God which are both true to the experience of God in all its richness- which transcends all language- and yet understandable to all who may read it, even philosohers.

I also hope it serves at least a little bit to remove what some apparently find incomprehensible in my writing, and how by understanding that, helping them to find that religious experience is as rational as science.

Both are analyses of different way of seeing the cause of experiences.

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This is absolutely beautiful and thank you for it, and I feel I understand and have experienced "this" - but my version of it and can relate to it strongly.

This captures poetically what it is to have a spiritual experience, in its beauty!

Now let me get into what I see as the problem, not with the post, but with the language itself, which you had no choice to use, since language IS how we humans communicate, as ineffctive as it is!

Now suppose, being a philosopher, you have taken it upon yourself to express all that you have expressed, and yet do it in a mode which is called "logical", in order to communicate with other philosophers.  Nasty task.  In other words, use other words. 

The way that is done, or has been done, is to "take it up a notch" into a realm of abstraction which enables you to account for the apparent contradictions which appear at the poetic level, in which the piece is now written.   Poetry as you have written, full of emotional expressions and the heart blood of the experience, is not "logical"- and actually requires leaving logic behind in favor of being able to communicate the depth and richness of the experience.

On the other hand, the task before you as a philosopher, is to write it in such a level of abstraction that transcends the poetry and is yet consistent logically.  In other words, no paradoxes.  Paradoxes are great for conveying feelings and can be VERY powerful, but in philosophy?   No Bueno! 

I agree with this 100%, but as you admit, it is not "logical".

Language is NOT reality- it is automatically separated from reality because it is symbolic.  In 26 squiggles, Language presumes to tell all truth and experience known to mankind.   Good luck!

Please excuse me now for trying to express your transcendent poetry into the language of immanent logic. 

Yes, the idea of God as the source of experiences like yours is right on the money.  NOTE that Rorty points that out. 

So for me, as I read it, 100% of all experience, not 99%, strictly speaking IS a mental state- after all no one around you was having the exact same experience at the same time you were- or at least that is what my paradigm suggests.   But Who was the SOURCE of that experience within YOUR being?  I would of course agree with you that it was God himself.

I ultimately think that this, though it may seem trivial, is what places spiritual experience on the same "level" of rationality as ANY OTHER "scientific" or "empirical" experience.

Under the right circumstances, you had an experience indicating something (the existence of God, and more) and that something is the cause of your mental state, or observation/experience.

Under the right circumstances, the scientist has an experience in the lab, reading the whatsdatstuff meter as reading 16.3472, the cause of which is something outside his mental state, indicating to him the presence of some substance perhaps.

Yet where did both experiences occur?  Were the experiences out there in the world, or within the being itself making the observation/having the experience?  How did the world change for these individuals making these observations?   The scientist may have just discovered the cause of cancer and you may have just fully experienced God.  But what is the effects on the world around each person?  None, at least at this time.   And so I hope it is easier to understand that 100% of experiences happen in the observer, and not in the "world" around them.

And so we have a similar problem with "immanent" and "transcendent" as words.   Poetically I get it totally and agree with you.  God is both our immanent Father in a very human way- we can go to Him with our troubles etc, and He does and will, help us.  On the other hand, he is so far beyond us, he might well be described as "transcendent", poetically.

But describing Him as BOTH is like saying that a car is simultaneously white and black at the same time!  Philosophically, I think that makes no sense.

For my money, the best option is for one to describe one's experiences of what He as done in one's life, and allow the reader to decide what words fit, if one is speaking philosophically.

This may come off as a pedantic rant over grammatic details of language, perhaps correctly.   But for me, it is an attempt to explore different ways of using language about God which are both true to the experience of God in all its richness- which transcends all language- and yet understandable to all who may read it, even philosohers.

I also hope it serves at least a little bit to remove what some apparently find incomprehensible in my writing, and how by understanding that, helping them to find that religious experience is as rational as science.

Both are analyses of different way of seeing the cause of experiences.

I like it when you try to express your thoughts and experiences logically, and when others do that too, even if and when there is some disagreement between what people think and experience as individuals.

Seems to me that some people are bent or thrown off track sometimes simply because other people do not agree with what they are saying, which I see as totally illogical behavior. Why should that be? 

We all think and experience whatever we do, and if others do not agree, maybe it is only because they do not think the same thoughts or have the same experiences as the ones who do have those thoughts and experiences.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is absolutely beautiful and thank you for it, and I feel I understand and have experienced "this" - but my version of it and can relate to it strongly.

This captures poetically what it is to have a spiritual experience, in its beauty!

Now let me get into what I see as the problem, not with the post, but with the language itself, which you had no choice to use, since language IS how we humans communicate, as ineffctive as it is!

Now suppose, being a philosopher, you have taken it upon yourself to express all that you have expressed, and yet do it in a mode which is called "logical", in order to communicate with other philosophers.  Nasty task.  In other words, use other words. 

The way that is done, or has been done, is to "take it up a notch" into a realm of abstraction which enables you to account for the apparent contradictions which appear at the poetic level, in which the piece is now written.   Poetry as you have written, full of emotional expressions and the heart blood of the experience, is not "logical"- and actually requires leaving logic behind in favor of being able to communicate the depth and richness of the experience.

On the other hand, the task before you as a philosopher, is to write it in such a level of abstraction that transcends the poetry and is yet consistent logically.  In other words, no paradoxes.  Paradoxes are great for conveying feelings and can be VERY powerful, but in philosophy?   No Bueno! 

I agree with this 100%, but as you admit, it is not "logical".

Language is NOT reality- it is automatically separated from reality because it is symbolic.  In 26 squiggles, Language presumes to tell all truth and experience known to mankind.   Good luck!

Please excuse me now for trying to express your transcendent poetry into the language of immanent logic. 

Yes, the idea of God as the source of experiences like yours is right on the money.  NOTE that Rorty points that out. 

So for me, as I read it, 100% of all experience, not 99%, strictly speaking IS a mental state- after all no one around you was having the exact same experience at the same time you were- or at least that is what my paradigm suggests.   But Who was the SOURCE of that experience within YOUR being?  I would of course agree with you that it was God himself.

I ultimately think that this, though it may seem trivial, is what places spiritual experience on the same "level" of rationality as ANY OTHER "scientific" or "empirical" experience.

Under the right circumstances, you had an experience indicating something (the existence of God, and more) and that something is the cause of your mental state, or observation/experience.

Under the right circumstances, the scientist has an experience in the lab, reading the whatsdatstuff meter as reading 16.3472, the cause of which is something outside his mental state, indicating to him the presence of some substance perhaps.

Yet where did both experiences occur?  Were the experiences out there in the world, or within the being itself making the observation/having the experience?  How did the world change for these individuals making these observations?   The scientist may have just discovered the cause of cancer and you may have just fully experienced God.  But what is the effects on the world around each person?  None, at least at this time.   And so I hope it is easier to understand that 100% of experiences happen in the observer, and not in the "world" around them.

And so we have a similar problem with "immanent" and "transcendent" as words.   Poetically I get it totally and agree with you.  God is both our immanent Father in a very human way- we can go to Him with our troubles etc, and He does and will, help us.  On the other hand, he is so far beyond us, he might well be described as "transcendent", poetically.

But describing Him as BOTH is like saying that a car is simultaneously white and black at the same time!  Philosophically, I think that makes no sense.

For my money, the best option is for one to describe one's experiences of what He as done in one's life, and allow the reader to decide what words fit, if one is speaking philosophically.

This may come off as a pedantic rant over grammatic details of language, perhaps correctly.   But for me, it is an attempt to explore different ways of using language about God which are both true to the experience of God in all its richness- which transcends all language- and yet understandable to all who may read it, even philosohers.

I also hope it serves at least a little bit to remove what some apparently find incomprehensible in my writing, and how by understanding that, helping them to find that religious experience is as rational as science.

Both are analyses of different way of seeing the cause of experiences.

You get a trophy for this. Phenomenal expression of great concepts. 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

You get a trophy for this. Phenomenal expression of great concepts. 

Thanks.

I needed that. 

Maybe I have finally figured out how to put it into words mo'bettah.    And I know that spiritual experiences have been very important to you as well.

Honestly the ideas are very straightforward to me, but expressing it to others is quite different!  My wife always tells me I "skip steps" when explaining things.  I have been thinking this way for 50 years now and it is just... obvious, but of course at first it was rather mysterious for me if not more than others.

I could not figure out analytical philosophy which is totally language oriented, while I was looking for metaphysics about God, always expecting it to start with the words "God is...." as if one could put what God IS into little symbols.   There is a story about St Augustine who was walking down the beach one day, contemplating the nature of God, and he found a little boy digging up sand, of course a favorite pastime of little boys!

Augustine asked him why he was digging such a deep hole, and then trying to fill it with water.   The boy replied "I am digging a hole big enough to contain the whole sea!"

Augustine replied "I am sorry to tell you, but you will never be able to dig a hole big enough to fit the entire sea!!"

The little boy, an angel, said to him, "And you, Augustine, will never be able to fit God into your mind".

And so I learned that we can never fit all of reality into our minds, much less our words.

But what we CAN contemplate is how WE experience reality, and think of paradigms which work until a better one comes along, in our little linguistic models, like our little model airplanes or cars we made as children.  Language is the only tool we have and yet it is SO inadequate!

Edited October 14, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Canadiandude]

Apparently some fool on Sunday went and ripped down a lot of BYU faculty‘s safe space stickers, rainbow buttons & flags, n such on their office doors and external boards. 

Even a sign that said “Jesus said love everyone”

Interesting times.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks.

I needed that. 

Maybe I have finally figured out how to put it into words mo'bettah.    And I know that spiritual experiences have been very important to you as well.

Honestly the ideas are very straightforward to me, but expressing it to others is quite different!  My wife always tells me I "skip steps" when explaining things.  I have been thinking this way for 50 years now and it is just... obvious, but of course at first it was rather mysterious for me if not more than others.

I could not figure out analytical philosophy which is totally language oriented, while I was looking for metaphysics about God, always expecting it to start with the words "God is...." as if one could put what God IS into little symbols.   There is a story about St Augustine who was walking down the beach one day, contemplating the nature of God, and he found a little boy digging up sand, of course a favorite pastime of little boys!

Augustine asked him why he was digging such a deep hole, and then trying to fill it with water.   The boy replied "I am digging a hole big enough to contain the whole sea!"

Augustine replied "I am sorry to tell you, but you will never be able to dig a hole big enough to fit the entire sea!!"

The little boy, an angel, said to him, "And you, Augustine, will never be able to fit God into your mind".

And so I learned that we can never fit all of reality into our minds, much less our words.

But what we CAN contemplate is how WE experience reality, and think of paradigms which work until a better one comes along, in our little linguistic models, like our little model airplanes or cars we made as children.  Language is the only tool we have and yet it is SO inadequate!

From Wikipedia (Richard Bushman):

Religion[edit]

Bushman grew up in a practicing Latter-day Saint family.^[7] As a young adult, he entered undergraduate studies at Harvard and there found himself struggling to communicate his religious beliefs in an environment in which logical positivism was current.^[24] I. Bernard Cohen, a mentor to Bushman in Harvard's history and science concentration, told him that most people at Harvard "thought Mormonism is garbage".^[24] Unsure how to reply, Bushman began wondering if there was "enough evidence to believe in God", becoming "drawn toward agnosticism" as a result.^[7][24] Even so, Bushman interrupted his studies at Harvard to serve as a missionary for the church in New England and Atlantic Canada where he overcame doubts about the existence of God and became convinced that the Book of Mormon was right.^[25] Bushman has opined in retrospect, "If I was such a doubter, why did I go into the mission field where I would be called on to testify of my beliefs virtually every day? ... I have come to believe that in actuality my problem was not faith but finding the words to express my faith."^[24]

Bushman later held various religious callings within the LDS Church, including seminary teacher, bishop, stake president, and stake patriarch.^[7][26] On his decision to study the religion he is affiliated with Bushman replied, "Would you say that the only people who can do black studies are not blacks, or that to do women's studies you have to be a non-woman? You get all sorts of people who have deep personal commitments to a subject they teach, and that has its advantages."^[15]

And of course the effects of our spiritual experience on the world around us result from our appearance, words and actions as we convey them independently of others' mental states, and these actions only bear fruit in the world around us when they are experienced by others. Without God, the fruit remains internal to us and without us, His fruit remains internal to Him (hence Moses 1:39 and the principle of gathering).

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

From Wikipedia (Richard Bushman):

Religion[edit]

Bushman grew up in a practicing Latter-day Saint family.^[7] As a young adult, he entered undergraduate studies at Harvard and there found himself struggling to communicate his religious beliefs in an environment in which logical positivism was current.^[24] I. Bernard Cohen, a mentor to Bushman in Harvard's history and science concentration, told him that most people at Harvard "thought Mormonism is garbage".^[24] Unsure how to reply, Bushman began wondering if there was "enough evidence to believe in God", becoming "drawn toward agnosticism" as a result.^[7][24] Even so, Bushman interrupted his studies at Harvard to serve as a missionary for the church in New England and Atlantic Canada where he overcame doubts about the existence of God and became convinced that the Book of Mormon was right.^[25] Bushman has opined in retrospect, "If I was such a doubter, why did I go into the mission field where I would be called on to testify of my beliefs virtually every day? ... I have come to believe that in actuality my problem was not faith but finding the words to express my faith."^[24]

Bushman later held various religious callings within the LDS Church, including seminary teacher, bishop, stake president, and stake patriarch.^[7][26] On his decision to study the religion he is affiliated with Bushman replied, "Would you say that the only people who can do black studies are not blacks, or that to do women's studies you have to be a non-woman? You get all sorts of people who have deep personal commitments to a subject they teach, and that has its advantages."^[15]

And of course the effects of our spiritual experience on the world around us result from our appearance, words and actions as we convey them independently of others' mental states, and these actions only bear fruit in the world around us when they are experienced by others. Without God, the fruit remains internal to us and without us, His fruit remains internal to Him (hence Moses 1:39 and the principle of gathering).

Thanks, great stuff! Did not know that about Bushman.