HiJolly

I said "*some* people miss the witness, or are never given it". The problem is that I don't like telling people that they missed the witness. Unless the Spirit tells me, I don't know. My experience is that after many years of talking with people that are distraught because they absolutely believe they did not get an answer to their prayer, it is really hard for me to say to them, "well, you're just not qualified. Which is it, your faith, your intent, or your heart that is missing?" Have you ever heard, as I have, someone say "Well, you must have some sin you haven't repented of. Can't you repent?" I don't know about you, but my experience has been that this approach really hurts people. The other alternative seems to be that they are not patient enough for the answer to come "in the Lord's due time". If they're talking to me, then they already ran out of patience. So, I find that it is best to say "I don't know" why the witness was not received, when people ask me. Yes, it certainly could be that they are not listening. I know that God deals with each person on an individual basis, and if He doesn't fill me in through discernment (he has upon occasion), then I don't know why, and I've found that guessing only hurts people, and telling them that they are insensitive or "out of tune" doesn't really seem to help either, and telling them that they must be more patient - well, we all know that's true, but I certainly can't say WHY they must. Overall, to dismiss someone's complaint with .... what reason? What would you tell them? For me, I find it best to just tell them I don't know why they haven't received an answer, and to keep trying, and I'll pray for them. Not a problem. I just put some thoughts down, but they got a little long, I'm afraid most folks don't have patience to wade through it all. Thanks for your response. HiJolly

Everyone seems to hope so, as a matter of course... Since you brought it up, here's the music for Conference (3 of 5 sessions) SAT AM ---------- Press Forward Saints (Hymnbook # 81) Faith of Our Fathers Living Still Come Unto Him (Hymnbook # 114) REST HYMN: Now Let Us Rejoice #3 Where Can I Turn for Peace I Believe In Christ SUN AM ---------- Guide Us O Thou Great Jehovah #83 O Thou Kind and Gracious Father #150 A Child's Prayer REST HYMN: I Am a Child of God #301 God So Loved the World How Firm a Foundation SUN PM ---------- Beautiful Zion Built Above #44 Be Still My Soul REST HYMN: We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet #19 Sing We Now at Parting At least, that's the plan as of this week. Hope y'all enjoy it! HiJolly

OK. Why don't we start with the relationship between knowledge and truth. We learn in the D&C that truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to be. However, if you look at the section (93) where this is found, you will see that the context is very, ah, spiritual (ie, other-worldly). So unless you have been introduced to the mysteries, I would say lets let that be, for the time being. We can return to it at some point if you'd like. It is the very meat of the Gospel, and maybe really tough meat at that. In the world, truth is often seen as something unknowable, some ideal that is sadly unreachable. Pontius Pilate's comment "What is Truth?" is so right, from a worldly perspective. Thanks to section 93 of the D&C, we can think of truth as 'what is real', or 'the way things really are'. God, on the other hand, sees truth as 'what is' inclusive of all time, or, from His/Her perspective, *outside* of time. But I said I wouldn't get into that... Knowledge is seen in different ways. It always seems to be related to what *we* know of "what is". So, it is a personal window to truth. Sometimes we can find ways to spread this knowledge beyond the personal. Let me explain my views on this. In the Greek, there are two kinds of knowledge, Gnosis and Episteme. Gnosis means to know, to think, to judge "what is x"; and Episteme means the aquisition of a skill, understanding "how is x". Or we could say, that Gnosis is the religious perspective which is generally personal, and Episteme is the scientific, or public, view. As I have heard some LDS folks say, the scriptures tell us the WHY of existence, and science tells us HOW. If we start to think that the scriptures are telling us 'how' things in the world are, then we should have warning alarms, bells and whistles going off, telling us we are in danger of misunderstanding the scriptures, for they are concerned with gnosis, not episteme. IMO. This is sometimes called the nonoverlapping magesteria or NOMA(see an excellent presentation here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html ) That basically says that science will find truth in the natural world, where conditions can be objectively measured and analyzed, and religion will find truth in transcendent reality, or in the spiritual realms. Some think that Mormonism blends the two, with things like Moroni's promise: A formulaic recipe for a repeatable, global spritual experience. I agree in general, except for the rather obvious fact that the answer to the promise must, and always will be, personal. Therefore subjective, not objective. I also think that there are those that never receive a recognizable response. They may receive many small spritual promptings (and fail to recognize them for what they are), but not the 'burning in the bosom' that is unmistakable. Obviously *some* people miss the witness, or are never given it. I do not dismiss this as 'unfaithful' or 'contrary to scripture'. I myself have never received a direct 'burning' answer to this specific prayer, though I know it is true from innumerable small and yet undeniable witnesses to that effect. I think it's interesting that I've had some really major experiences, but none were witnesses of the Book of Mormon, per se. It doesn't trouble me, really. I still know the Church is true. Note the word 'know'. But you see, it IS personal. Fifteen LDS members can get up at Fast & Testimony meeting, all say "The Church is true", and every one of them mean it a little differently. Isn't that wonderful? HiJolly

I still remember the shock that rolled through the music world when he revealed in his autobiography that he never learned how to read music. Best wishes to him and his family. HiJolly

I have not, though I've heard excerpts. I recently read "The Great Divorce" by Lewis, and thought it was very insightful. I would not for a moment doubt that it was a visionary dream. HiJolly

JS, you're killing me. Maybe I just don't understand. Your girlfriend is mentally challenged, right? How much? Is she legally competent to make decisions concerning her life, such as where to live, who to trust, how to buy groceries, etc.? I mean, this is serious stuff you're talking about now. If you are so attracted to her, this may be saying really serious things about you. I think you should call Dr. Laura or something, 'cause I'm afraid I'm see some really bad stuff here. So help me out - The question is not only is she mentally competent enough to be physically intimate, but how could she possibly be a good companion to you down the road? WITH KIDS?? (yes, I know you have your own challenges, but IQ isn't one of them, right?) Worried for both of you, HiJolly

Hmmm... did I miss deductive truth? Yes, I did. She was great. HiJolly

I first learned experential truth (like, if I cry too hard I can't breath or, if I lose my balance I fall, and falling might hurt.). Then, I learned religious truth (God is real, Jesus is my savior). Then I learned logical truth (cats are furry; Spanky is a cat; Therefore Spanky is furry). Then I learned mathematical truth ( if I take 3 from 2 I get -1). Then I learned philosophical truth (I think; therefore I am). Then I learned scientific method and how it can be used to establish or debunk claimed truths. Later I discovered blends of the above methods, such as mathematical logic (wow was that a fun class!) and so forth. Each of these methods has its limits. I think if any of these is primary, or foundational, it is experential truth. We are the sum of our experiences, right? Any thoughts?

Not to get too new agey or anything, but I believe that the things we focus our will or intent on, have a more likely chance of manifesting. FWIW. HiJolly

Welcome. HiJolly

I'm so glad things worked out! Did your SIL have a burst appendix, then? HiJolly

I loved these Know Your Religion talks. They were mostly whereever the Saints were very strong, geographically. Utah, AZ... We'd go on Friday nights to various Stake Centers around the area, where the program was held. It is sad to see it go away. HiJolly

Naw, he just has lots of help. HiJolly

I have a few thoughts here. Everyone in the Church is expected to believe in the basic teachings of the Church, and you have the exact teachings of the Church (at present) there at the lds.org web site. You have read them, and I would think you should be happy with that. I know that if we follow those teachings, and progress in the Gospel, we will indeed have salvation. You have to pay attention to the way things are stated. I agree that the Garden of Eden did not include death. As far as I know, practically every Mormon agrees with that. But you are asking questions that go beyond what is known, for example, was there death on the earth while the Garden existed; This is not explicitly stated in the scriptures (unless you want to view 2 Nephi 2:22 that way -- which I don't). I am confident that the Gospel allows for and even embraces evolution. Many LDS disagree, including my own mother, father, wife and 98% of my family. But it's OK, because we are allowed to believe as we will, as long as we don't go across the line into teaching. Some Church leaders have supported evolution. Others vilified it. The official view is neutral, at the moment, as long as you believe that we are the literal children of God, which I do. Unfortunately, one of the vilifiers published against the advice of the then-current Prophet, and later became the Prophet himself. So many Churchgoers believe that he was right. I think that's <strike>nuts</strike> --uh, lacking in proper perspective. The current President of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles is the only one (IIRC) that still will occasionally speak out against evolution. Oh well - we disagree, and that's OK, within limits. I stay within those limits. I certainly don't believe in evolution sans Godly involvement. Therefore, everyone has their opinion, and that's fine. We are all expected to think about these things, and, believe it or not, we're not all just robots automatically falling into step with what some former Church leader said. Some do choose that road, but I try not to be one of them, it didn't work for me. Uh, on some things, anyway...

Addendum to my previous post... I'm not saying , though, that the Holy Ghost & Lucifer are the same thing. While they do both seem to facilitate knowledge, their methods seem quite opposite. One teaches through light and the power of God, the other via shame and regret -- "Godly sorrow". HiJolly

From http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/B...%20We%20Get.htm : Origin of the Title "Lucifer": The term Lucifer is the English rendering of the Hebrew term hêlÙl ("shining or brilliant one"). The meaning of the Hebrew noun was preserved in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible through the Greek term he¿sphoros ("bright one," "morning star"). The English "Lucifer" comes from Latin; it renders the Greek he¿sphoros into the Latin lucifer, which simply means "light bearer, morning star." So, I don't see where lucifer as 'light-bearer' is particularly "Luciferian". Then again, I have no idea what a "Luciferian" IS. It's not a term I'm familiar with. The temple seems to suggest that without Lucifer's involvement in the Garden of Eden, knowledge would not be possible to the children of Adam, so I guess I'm ok with him being a way of teaching us knowledge. After all, if he (Satan) tempts me to steal my friend's best deck of Pokemon cards, and then I can't ever USE them because then my friend would find out, and so then I throw them away so I don't get caught but I see how sad my friend is and how I never really benefitted in any way, and in fact suffered for stealing them, well, didn't I learn something? I can see how sin teaches us the good from the evil, via our experiences. So maybe Palladism isn't so bad after all? I dunno. Like I said before, I've don't recall having heard the term before. HiJolly

Welcome! I grew up in AZ. Hope you like it there. HiJolly

heh. I almost missed this question, in the midst of the other comments flying about... You had asked "Is there any reason to think that either souls or spirits are real things?" I said yes. First, I think that a 'soul' is the spirit and body combined. I think the spirit is the intelligence, housed in a spirit form provided by our Heavenly Parents. So, it looks like this: Intelligence >> spirit >> soul. Or you could say that the soul has 3 major components. So, what's my evidence for that? None, specifically. In general terms, I have been taught a whole bunch of this kind of stuff since I was a little kid. BIC, and all that. As I grew, I began to put into practice the things I was taught, as Jesus taught: --- John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. --- ...and sure enough, as I exercized faith in the Church's teachings, I saw by the results that many, if not most, were true. This engendered faith to a further extent. So now I'm like a blind man, learning what voices in the crowd to trust, and what voices to distrust. It is an experential basis for action (ie, exerting faith). This is how I have arrived at my evidences, and thus my belief. As to what they specifically are, I don't think my efforts to explicate them would be fruitful (or timely), so I will decline to share. Sorry, but I am confident that you can follow my same methods and arrive and equally meaningful evidences yourself, if you have not done so already. HiJolly

Yechy tone, Moksha. Ugh. HiJolly

Hmmm... I think they are not different at all. Like C.S. Lewis, I believe that the spiritual feeling we have when viewing a sunset or listening to beautiful music is spiritual because it 'reminds' us of our pre-mortal existence, where we experienced these things in greater perfection. As this world is modeled after that one, I don't think this is much of a stretch. I am confident that things "not of this earth" are very real, indeed. Do you agree with that? I notice you say "Others say...", but then don't comment on whether you believe it or not. Do you? Yes, the Church says the Garden was on the earth, but does not specify whether that is the spiritual earth, or the physical one, or some possible gradation between the two. Unless I've missed something? HiJolly

Yes, I have read some quotes from Pike and Levi. I think it's good to keep in mind that these people come from a 'mystery' perspective, not the LDS perspective, which (the LDS) is a very, very practical approach to spirituality, God, and everthing else in manifestation. Where 'mystery' traditions and the occult seem to concern themselves with both the transcendent and the imminent, the LDS approach is to limit the focus to the imminent world, which is why I call it a 'practical' religion. What's fascinating to me is that even though the LDS emphasis is clearly about living in the world and yet not being of it, it also points to the transcendent worlds by referring to 'mysteries' and things like "The Church of the Firstborn" in the D&C, much as the Bible does. Gotta love it! Something here for everyone... I think there is no question about that, whatever. The influence is clear to those who look, IMO. I don't think that's a bad thing, myself. I don't buy into the nasty ideas about how evil freemasonry is. I think they do use terminology that scares the bejeebers out of ignorant men, though. "Prove all things" is excellent advice. Brian, I don't really understand the word 'paladism'. Can you define it? Is there a definition that is acceptible to both those that believe conspiracy theories, and the Freemasons themselves? As for "necessary evil", that's what the Book of Mormon seems to teach, as you say in this next quote: The church has taught that we wouldn't be here at all without the fall, though I'm not sure of all the thinking behind that. HiJolly

...and then you fearlessly proceed to comment... being a sheep, I'll follow right along... Well, sort of. I really like the results of Royal Skousen's research. I just wish I could afford the published results!!!!!!! I do think the evidence shows a 'tight' process, but I don't think that is necessarily exclusive from an influence from Joseph. Indeed. Yes, I have in the past, and I'm happy where I am now on the issue. HiJolly

Here you are doing it again, Zeke. Why? Do you believe something spiritual cannot be 'actual' or 'real'? Why? Literal in what sense, Zeke? You do realize that there are different levels of meaning in most things we see/hear in life, don't you? HiJolly

Zeke, forgive me for responding to this query to poulsenll... I don't understand why you dichotomize 'truth' and 'physical'. Why are you doing this? Please, explain. HiJolly

Well, I sure think so. Remember that 'reason' is not anything like 'proof'. HiJolly