mountthepavement

Do you mean, "decide to tell the truth"?

General follow-up question: Jesus was charismatic: agree or disagree?

Living Colour, I believe.

That's cool you like it. What would the atonement be? Would Jesus be the FDIC, a guarantor, a failsafe when our own efforts fall short? It's not like the analogy has to cover everything though. You know, the word, redemption -- and I don't know whether it is a useful one in LDS -- refers to exchange of a promissory note of some kind for the object or value of its promise. Is "redemption" biblical? I'm not sure I know for sure. Also concerning, the "future" and "permanence," it seems to me the anxiety is never assuaged in this lifetime, but, tentatively at first, more and more assurance of its assuagement in the future is given by LDS concepts and accepted as true by the believer/ nascent spiritual discerner. Thought of within the faith, which is full of promise and positivity, and protection from putatively negative emotions like fear, as you say, this would seem a good thing. However, it might seem fair to an outsider to think of this as permanent avoidance of a certain important sense that things aren't quite right, namely the anxiety that the material world is not sufficient for one. Again, the practitioner of faith may find this conception also a delight -- one would hope to put off fear, as it were, for one's entire life, to defer dread, and to let anxiety slide away -- if it be to the "future", as long as that future is infinitely far off (permanently deferred) one is in the clear. However, objectively, or, say, abjectly, one could ask the question, might this anxiety be an important thing in itself to a self? Might its permanent deferment represent a struggle to forget or dull its exigency?

Hello, I think I mentioned I reread this passage. It is interesting. I would very much like to continue to discuss this particular passage. I hope I can ask an interesting, sensible and thought-provoking question to generate discussion in this direction. This passage seems to develop as it goes along. What is its starting place? In particular, what is the assumed starting place, which is also from my perspective the inevitable starting place for the LDS faith, if not an experience of, say, a question in one's mind concerning god, whether he is real, whether one ought to believe, etc. But what stirs this sort of thought in someone's mind? What would lead one to such a question: From a purely worldly point of view, questions about whether god indeed exists might very well be completely inessential and optional. Thus, one can only be brought to such a question by feeling some lack of fulfillment with the purely worldly approach to life, no? Can we denote such a state as "anxiety"? Disregarding whatever else you may think about the word, if you will for the moment, allow this convenient word to denote the state which corresponds to a need beyond the worldly for the remainder of this particular post. Given that, it seems to me that the process described by the author above (Alma?) is one of more and more PERMANENTLY entrusting the assuagement of this anxiety to an (putatively supernatural) event in the FUTURE. I would like you to consider carefully how the words permanent and future interact. A fair analogy, it seems to me, and I would like to know whether you agree, is that of rolling over debt, or, if you prefer, an investment. The holy spirit (etc.) appears to continually "roll-over" our debt/investment throughout our lives until we finally either reap the rewards or face the consequences at the end of time. Neat!

Charisma in religion: Good? Bad? Nuanced opinion? Ideally, I would like to hear people on this site talk about it, but I don't have much to say. Is it too much to hope for for people to carry on a topic interesting to me without my giving much input?

Farewell bmy. Don't know whatcha did, but it was interesting chatting on this thread anyway.

cool

The jump from "feel" to "know" is not an obvious one to John Q. Public. Seems like a lot is going on there. I think that falls under the category you suggested I start a new thread on though. What does that trial mean to you? An actual event (perhaps at the end of time)? Or life as a whole?

Which of the five senses? :) (Sorry for the funny way of asking the question if it strikes as such.) I mean, probably speaking with God, right? Tell me more please, if you will! Thanks, and hi.

Wow about your brother. No doubt an amazing story. I'm not going to pry, but I feel for you! Thanks for your response. Don't worry about intricacies of the thread! I'm just asking questions, and y'all are being good to oblige me with time and answers. Maybe I'll get back to the neighbor topic with you! I think a neighbor is better understood as anyone in need, not just anyone around you exactly. Agree, disagree, etc.?

I'm intrigued. I'll be looking for you! If you want I started a thread with the same question, so if you want to chat about it more in depth, head over to the gospel section. That goes for everyone too.

Thanks for the response. I look forward to hearing more from you one the forums!

Also, I take it that speculation in LDS is not really discouraged but is described as utterly inessential or highly optional, and you just have the kind of interests that lead you to or you merely take fun in thinking about some speculative stuff yourself? That was an interesting bit about spirit=matter in LDS. I didn't know that. ... Are you suggesting that god is a relative (or relational) term? -- that the gods are that because we are their subjects? Also, do you hold the highest priesthood in LDS -- isn't that the order of Melchizedek? Or just the order of aaron? Or whatever they are called. Just trying to get an idea of how representative you may or may not be of LDS thought. You seem very much an individual either way. I'm not saying Mormons aren't individuals or are uniform in their thought, but one can't help looking for patterns in a self-designated grouping of people.

Can you give me an example in history and also an example in your own life of some novel knowledge gained in this way?

I am thinking more about how faith and knowledge are connected. I see you have already discussed this. So, do I have this right?: We recognize LDS as an hypothesis or claim among many. We test this hypothesis through a suspension of disbelief (is this faith yet?), and we receive a confirmation in the form of a warm to burning sensation :) and sense of peace and truth. The association of this unique experience is then sufficient to tag our heretofore hypothesis as knowledge. I may have simplified it, but do I have the gist? So, is faith the same as willful "suspension of disbelief"? I think I am unable to predict your answer to this question.

(Rereading) What does discern mean in this context?

To everyone: Is faith or knowledge to be valued more? I hope I am being sufficiently vague as to not guide canned you all into canned responses.

Originally Posted by pam Each testimony has to be a personal testament to themself of their own thoughts and beliefs. Can I return to this! I am really interested in this question: How is the personal testimony of your faith within you different from when you reflect on other aspects of your identity? Is it simply that ALL other aspects of your identity are not subject to the type of change characterized by constant reinforcement rather than "horizontal" or qualitative types of change?

Yes, that's what I meant. So, is there "reasonable" or "a shadow of a" doubt in the process by which you have come to conclude that the appropriate word to describe the set of propositions and perhaps nonlinguistic images and feelings that comprise your faith as knowledge? Then is knowledge the right word? Or is it beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond all but the empty, endless doubts of the sophistical philosopher, which, in their being endless, would result in a life considered but unlived and in fact completely and thoroughly avoided through procrastination? Or maybe this too is false? One more simple though perhaps unclear and quite possibly tangential question: Can you use quantitative comparisons when dealing with something qualitative? In this context: is feeling a little that something is utterly true and feeling utterly that something is utterly true any different? Or, consider, would it make a difference to the truth of something if 6.49 billion people knew it to be true or if only one? Would it be more convincing if a small number, say a growing minority believed it to be true? If all these people benefited from their belief, could we then say that it must be true, because of good fruits it bore, or might we apply the reasoning of a criminal trial and point out that we have found a motive for untruth? Perhaps I will get off this abject doubt tack in a moment though.

Perhaps we are all (everyone) equal in that respect, then. ... Also, Do the gods interact with humanity spiritually or materially? From afar, or was Jesus an ambassador, a physical guest? Perhaps he was engineered to appear and in fact be human yet know of his godly origins? If they interact with humanity spiritually, how is that accomplished? Thanks for the links though, and your reply! What is the difference between a god, a human, a sentient creature, and any-old life-form? Is it qualitative or quantitative?

This may illustrate the limitation or the imperfection of analogies, but notice that the savings account is built on the promise or assumption that the $25 is available to us at any time (perhaps given a short waiting period.) However, this may not be the case, in the event of a collapse of the industry. Now, is it possible that the kernel of peace and truth from which we have been told springs the tree of life (trying diligently not to mix metaphors up to a point) at the end of time does indeed grow and build upon itself in a visible way, but actually has at its core a less than absolute guarantee. Can we conclude by its growth and progress alone that it is indeed what we view it as, as in the case of our viewing money in the bank as money in our pocket (a little unwisely, as we perhaps have learned recently.) Stuff like that. Is it possible? This is called a seed of doubt, which of course we ought to be wary against. Maybe.

Again, I may look more at that, but it is different to me from asking questions to people, which is what the fora are all about to me. (Not just "learning" per se.) I am interested in how people reflect on their faith. Reading the document you provided to me would get me thinking about Harold whats-his-name or... I could check back for that... but he is removed from me, and I would prefer not to speculate too much about him, when I could spend my time thinking about a more immediate voice. Would you agree or disagree with the notion that "degrees of perfection" is an oxymoron? Also, what is the criteria for perfection? What is the standard by which we measure (ans, I know: Jesus) But then how do we know Jesus is the standard? How do we know he was perfect and not hypothetically better than any of us by, say, referendum, or by the fact that we have mythologized him that way. How would a person even go about mythologizing perfection? Would that be possible?

I seem to recall I have seen this in other LDS contexts or said similarly by others. Can you begin an explanation of the distinction? If you like, you could make reference to different types of knowledge that can be described by the terms sapere (to know facts) and connaitre (to know a person, to make the aquaintance of). Is knowing the truth more like sapare or connaitre? Also, it is interesting (or not) to note that it seems sensible to compare the concepts belief and knowledge. Both may take propositions as their objects. For instance, in this context, we could say, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead or I know Jesus rose from the dead. Consider belief in such: One might be tempted to stake some wager on one's beliefs. Can one know whether such is true? Is it beyond all doubt? Of course not. But can one know despite the possibility of doubt? Or is there possibility of doubt of any proposition? Maybe. Who cares about such intellectualism, right? Are belief and knowing perhaps synonyms for one another and one is merely being overly INTELLECTUAL by pointing out a distinction between the two? Was JS being clever when he (did he?) brought up this discussion? Or was he perhaps simply calling attention to the possibility of INSINCERITY of belief, and he found that this weak form of belief could be contrasted with a stronger form, which he designated with the word knowledge. Reread that last paragraph if you like since it was not connected with anything above, or just respond if you prefer. :) Thanks!

Thank you, and I'll consider your suggestion.