One Global Faith -- Is It Possible?

[Misshalfway]

Empirical evidence. And I have no problem whatsoever with admitting that there are some things that we don't know and may possibly never know about the world we live in. Not all questions need answers.

Why is it that you have decided that empirical evidence is the ONLY way to determine truth?

I don't mind that there are things that man may never know, but I find it interesting that some appear to me to be closing the door on the possibilities of what we can know or how much we can know about spiritual subjects because the discovery process may require one to move into a different sphere of perspective.

I think what is missing here is the understanding that the end result of revelation IS empirical see, feel, hear types of evidence.

[Starfish]

But how do you distinguish between revelation from god and the ideas of men? I've asked this question to members before and all answers I receive reek of confirmation bias.

Not sure what you mean by "confirmation bias", and at the risk of taking this thread further down this tangent . . .

I'd say one way to distinguish between them is time. Over time, do you see good coming from the revelation or idea, or not? I've been LDS for nearly 50 years, and I can say I've SEEN endless good come from the teachings of the Church. I've learned simply that it works. If I do as our prophet says, my life goes better. I have less problems. I'm happier. I've seen this in the lives of my family also. So having seen this for so long, I've found it very easy to accept what the Prophet says as revelation from God. It has been proven by the test of time.

Steering back to the thread topic, it would be wonderful to have one global faith. But I'm afraid we won't compromise on doctrine. This is why we urge the world to ask God. Go with what He says. He's the only one who has the right to decide.

[Traveler]

The snow flake comment and my chaos theory question were not really related. In fact I assumed you had probably studied chaos theory more in depth that I have, I was just confirming that assumption. I brought up the snow flake because many people say that order and organization require intlligence guiding it. I submit that snowflakes are orderly and organized but have no intelligence guiding their creation.

Think of a fractal; beautiful and infinitely complex patterns arise from initial parameters and a simple equation. That is how I think of the universe. Infinite complexity exploded from initial coditions and relatively simple rules governing them. Not to say that is the only way of looking at things, but to say that your way of looking at a "designed" universe is the only logical conclusion is a bit of a stretch.

My point is very simple - no matter where you begin or how you define the initial conditions of the universe we are left to wonder what caused the beginning with those particular initial conditions. Stephen Hawkins referred to this as the "event horizon". The LDS concept is that if you know the initial conditions you are more likely to be able to someday be able to recreate them than if you attempt to do so by random chance or do not think you are capable of thinking of such things. If intelligence is not part of the initial conditions then it could not be replicated – ever – with intelligence. I just prefer to believe that it is more probable that intelligence will someday solve the problem.

Pardon my logic but it does appear to me that looking for a logical conclusion and bases to the universe is the only logical way to consider the possibilities. I do not think that the assumption that there is no possible logic based on intelligence to the universe is a logical possibility.

The Traveler

[Guest Godless]

Why is it that you have decided that empirical evidence is the ONLY way to determine truth?

Because any other form of "truth" is stricly subjective, and I have no interest in such truth. As far as I'm concerned, science and reason are far better paths to truth and enlightenment than faith and scripture.

I don't mind that there are things that man may never know, but I find it interesting that some appear to me to be closing the door on the possibilities of what we can know or how much we can know about spiritual subjects because the discovery process may require one to move into a different sphere of perspective.

I don't rule out any possibilities. Is it possible that the existence of God may one day be objectively proven? Sure, but I see a very, very low probability of it, which is why I'm an atheist (see the spectrum I posted earlier in this thread). The way I see it, it is generally the theists of the world who are more inclined to rule out any sort of truth that may interfere with their religious worldview. Just look at all of the opposition that we have seen, and continue to see today, towards evolutionary theory despite the staggering evidence that supports it. The same sort of opposition existed hundreds of years ago when Galileo tried to convince people of heliocentrism. For hundreds of years prophesy, scripture, and ecumenical doctrine have kept people from accepting truths that are presented clearly and objectively.

I think what is missing here is the understanding that the end result of revelation IS empirical see, feel, hear types of evidence.

Personal revelation is not testable, nor is it observable to anyone aside from the immediate singular recipient. Revelation gives people evidence from personal experience to support their ideas of truth, and it's hard to get more subjective than that.

[abqfriend]

Sounds like you are a very strong believer in the non-existence of God.

Both being a theist and an atheist---ultimately take belief.

I am glad you have some doubt-perhaps belief/non-belief is a continum?

What do you think of that concept?

Both types of beliefs-take faith-just a different kind.

-Carol

I don't rule out any possibilities. Is it possible that the existence of God may one day be objectively proven? Sure, but I see a very, very low probability of it, which is why I'm an atheist

Personal revelation is not testable, nor is it observable to anyone aside from the immediate singular recipient. Revelation gives people evidence from personal experience to support their ideas of truth, and it's hard to get more subjective than that.

[Hemidakota]

Why is it that you have decided that empirical evidence is the ONLY way to determine truth?

I don't mind that there are things that man may never know, but I find it interesting that some appear to me to be closing the door on the possibilities of what we can know or how much we can know about spiritual subjects because the discovery process may require one to move into a different sphere of perspective.

I think what is missing here is the understanding that the end result of revelation IS empirical see, feel, hear types of evidence.

Concur...when a person does receive revelation, it is empericial evidence.

[Misshalfway]

Because any other form of "truth" is stricly subjective, and I have no interest in such truth. As far as I'm concerned, science and reason are far better paths to truth and enlightenment than faith and scripture.

I don't rule out any possibilities. Is it possible that the existence of God may one day be objectively proven? Sure, but I see a very, very low probability of it, which is why I'm an atheist (see the spectrum I posted earlier in this thread). The way I see it, it is generally the theists of the world who are more inclined to rule out any sort of truth that may interfere with their religious worldview. Just look at all of the opposition that we have seen, and continue to see today, towards evolutionary theory despite the staggering evidence that supports it. The same sort of opposition existed hundreds of years ago when Galileo tried to convince people of heliocentrism. For hundreds of years prophesy, scripture, and ecumenical doctrine have kept people from accepting truths that are presented clearly and objectively.

Personal revelation is not testable, nor is it observable to anyone aside from the immediate singular recipient. Revelation gives people evidence from personal experience to support their ideas of truth, and it's hard to get more subjective than that.

Well, it isn't testable outside of the personal experiential realm. I mean I can't necessarily have you experience it with me. But I can tell you about my experiments and my findings and invite you to give it a go.

[Hemidakota]

Nor can we scientifically test how Jesus walked on water or caused to split the Red Sea to before Moses. He is not bound by our physical Telestial laws. Science just can’t grasp something so oblivious

[DigitalShadow]

My point is very simple - no matter where you begin or how you define the initial conditions of the universe we are left to wonder what caused the beginning with those particular initial conditions. Stephen Hawkins referred to this as the "event horizon". The LDS concept is that if you know the initial conditions you are more likely to be able to someday be able to recreate them than if you attempt to do so by random chance or do not think you are capable of thinking of such things. If intelligence is not part of the initial conditions then it could not be replicated – ever – with intelligence. I just prefer to believe that it is more probable that intelligence will someday solve the problem.

Pardon my logic but it does appear to me that looking for a logical conclusion and bases to the universe is the only logical way to consider the possibilities. I do not think that the assumption that there is no possible logic based on intelligence to the universe is a logical possibility.

The Traveler

I agree that there is an event horizon, beyond which we can know nothing about the universe or even speculate how those initial conditions came to be. Simply assuming it was some creator does not make sense to me though. From what I've seen intelligence itself is a fluke. We cannot recreate it so I see no reason to assume that it takes some other intelligence to create intelligence since we've never seen an instance of that either.

[DigitalShadow]

That's true but where did the material that created the snowflake come from? Was it always here? Which by my understanding of the Expanding Universe theory could be possible, but you still don't answer where it came from. Either it was created from nothing: (Which science states is impossible, I can't remember the law though. You know the whole matter and energy can't be created or destroyed thing.) came from outside of the universe which implies something is beyond the nothingness of space (or nothing is something, which is a can of worms better left alone): or, like I said before, it was always here. Perhaps someday science will answer this question or maybe it never will. As for me I say that the lack of logical, scientific answers to these questions is proof that Heavenly Father exists.

Please don't take this the wrong way; I hate how cold and emotionless the written word can be.

I never claimed to know all the answers and neither does science. I find it ironic though that you have no trouble believing God is eternal, but find it impossible to save a step and believe that the matter of the universe is simply eternal.

I would also like to point out that simply because science cannot answer everything does not "prove" Heavenly Father exists any more than it "proves" the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or Xenu for that matter.

[DigitalShadow]

Why is it that you have decided that empirical evidence is the ONLY way to determine truth?

I don't mind that there are things that man may never know, but I find it interesting that some appear to me to be closing the door on the possibilities of what we can know or how much we can know about spiritual subjects because the discovery process may require one to move into a different sphere of perspective.

I think what is missing here is the understanding that the end result of revelation IS empirical see, feel, hear types of evidence.

Empirical evidence is the only reasonably reliable way to determine truth and this has been proven throughout history time and time again. The movement toward using empirical evidence (generally called science) has uncovered many truths about the world around us and allows for the amazing comforts we have today.

The problem with calling relelation empirical evidence is that it cannot be reproduced. People all over the world receieve revelation about their own religion all the time. Given the amount of different and conflicting results people receive and have received throughout history, I find it hard to take that as evidence of anything other than that when you base conclusions solely on feelings, you are likely to be wrong.

[DigitalShadow]

Sounds like you are a very strong believer in the non-existence of God.

Both being a theist and an atheist---ultimately take belief.

I am glad you have some doubt-perhaps belief/non-belief is a continum?

What do you think of that concept?

Both types of beliefs-take faith-just a different kind.

Being unconvinced by current evidence (or lack there of) that one of the existing religions is correct does not require faith or belief. I can see how from a faith-based viewpoint it would seem that any view would require faith, but I (and I suspect Godless) truly do not have faith (in a religious sense) in anything. Whatever has the most empirical evidence will be accepted as a working truth (still can be proved wrong) and I see no need to hang on to beliefs (scientific, religious or whatever) beyond what is supported by evidence.

[Hemidakota]

DS revelation can be reproduced but only to the righteous. See the first vision.

There are some here who received the same that can testify with the boy prophet what he did see was infact the same vision they received.

[DigitalShadow]

DS revelation can be reproduced but only to the righteous. See the first vision.

There are some here who received the same that can testify with the boy prophet what he did see was infact the same vision they received.

No offense intended, but this is how I see it:

There are some from every religion that can testify that their religion is the one true religion. What does that demonstrate other than that personal revelation varies greatly and that is why we have different religions to begin with?

Any religion can say that their doctrine is true and only the righeous will know this for sure and simply claim that you're simply not righeous or faithful enough if you don't get revelation that their religion is true.

[Misshalfway]

No offense intended, but this is how I see it:

There are some from every religion that can testify that their religion is the one true religion. What does that demonstrate other than that personal revelation varies greatly and that is why we have different religions to begin with?

Any religion can say that their doctrine is true and only the righeous will know this for sure and simply claim that you're simply not righeous or faithful enough if you don't get revelation that their religion is true.

If all we have to lean on is the learnings and testimony of others to go on then, yes, you are right. It is only thru experiencing and "telling" and the "showing" of the Holy Ghost that we move beyond the he said - she said of religious ideas. And you are right anyone can say that any number of things are true. Without the spirit it is all just speculation.....opinion.

I think it is the process to finding and discovering spiritual truth that is just as important as the truth itself. It is this process that can be reproduced over and over again.

[Guest Godless]

Sounds like you are a very strong believer in the non-existence of God.

Both being a theist and an atheist---ultimately take belief.

I am glad you have some doubt-perhaps belief/non-belief is a continum?

What do you think of that concept?

Both types of beliefs-take faith-just a different kind.

-Carol

I believe I addressed this earlier in this thread, but I'll go ahead and expound on it a bit. We are all born atheists. Faith in God is something that has to be learned. Those who are never indoctrinated with faith are called implicit atheists. From the day they are born, they live their lives without belief in God. This sort of non-belief requires no faith.

Those like myself, who were raised in some sort of theistic belief system, are called explicit atheists because at some point in our lives we made the conscious decision to reject what we were raised to believe. As I mentioned earlier, this does, admittedly, require faith. It takes a great deal of faith to go against everything you're taught to believe. When you're taught your whole life that there's an eternal afterlife and you have to do X, Y, and Z if you want yours to be enjoyable, it takes a lot of faith to say, "No, there's no paradise waiting for me when I die". You make an explicit, conscious decision to reject it, and that's where faith comes in. Once your deconversion is complete, however, it doesn't take much faith to continue in your new worldview.

[Misshalfway]

I don't know if this helps, but I thought I would add D&C 93:1 to the mix:

The Lord is speaking.....

"Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my voice, and obeyeth my voice, shall see my face and know that I am."

[Misshalfway]

Alma 32 is also a good one......there comes a point after the exercising of faith that faith itself becomes dormant because it is replaced with knowledge. The chapter talks about light and that this light is discernible.....

Give the chapter a read. I know we through it around a lot but it really is the essence of what we are talking about here.

[DigitalShadow]

Without the spirit it is all just speculation.....opinion.

There in lies the problem. How do you (or anyone else) know whether it is the spirit or you are just thinking it is the spirit? Do people in other religions not feel the spirit for some reason? What about all the people who truly believe they feel the spirit but get drastically different results? What makes their feelings of the spirit less accurate than yours? What makes you think that there is no way you could be fooled (like presumably most of the human population since only a fraction of a percent are LDS)?

[DigitalShadow]

Alma 32 is also a good one......there comes a point after the exercising of faith that faith itself becomes dormant because it is replaced with knowledge. The chapter talks about light and that this light is discernible.....

Give the chapter a read. I know we through it around a lot but it really is the essence of what we are talking about here.

I have read all the sections talking about faith (as directed by missionaries) and I have also read many parables in the Book of Mormon about the virtue of faith, but so far it does not agree with my experiences in life.

[Starfish]

There in lies the problem. How do you (or anyone else) know whether it is the spirit or you are just thinking it is the spirit? Do people in other religions not feel the spirit for some reason? What about all the people who truly believe they feel the spirit but get drastically different results? What makes their feelings of the spirit less accurate than yours? What makes you think that there is no way you could be fooled (like presumably most of the human population since only a fraction of a percent are LDS)?

Faith is a choice.

Did I feel the Spirit? I CHOOSE the answer to that question.

Did I receive an answer to my prayer? Again, I CHOOSE the answer to that question.

It's all an experiment, like it says in Alma 32. Is obedience to the Gospel working for you? For me, YES.

So you make a choice, move forward, unsure, unknowing, testing what feels right. This is faith. If it works for you, you continue to move forward in that direction. I've done this my entire life and so far so good.

Every good thing in my life is a direct result of my activity in the LDS Church. I wouldn't leave it for anything.

[Starfish]

Maybe it's my imagination, but I've noticed that very few people who are non-LDS and who attend a church regularly, stay in one religion. Often they have changed religions several times. (I'm not talking about those who claim a religion, but seldom/never go.)

Has anyone else noticed this?

[Misshalfway]

There in lies the problem. How do you (or anyone else) know whether it is the spirit or you are just thinking it is the spirit? Do people in other religions not feel the spirit for some reason? What about all the people who truly believe they feel the spirit but get drastically different results? What makes their feelings of the spirit less accurate than yours? What makes you think that there is no way you could be fooled (like presumably most of the human population since only a fraction of a percent are LDS)?

I don't believe that I can't be fooled. That is a whole other side to this story. There are opposites in all things, but that is another subject.

I don't know if I can accurately explain all of human perception, but the scriptures do a pretty good job at describing what happens.

I just know that I have tested the process and that I have discovered that it works. I can know so many different things thru the Spirit. I have been obedient, and by george the Spirit is with me and I have been disobedient, and dang, talk about the closing of the heavens! I can feel that difference in my life and know which course I should follow if I do want to experience the spirit of the Lord. These are observable and measurable occurrences.

But it is more than just believing and always staying in the dark hoping you got it right. Faith without works is dead. There are proofs along the way. There is fruit that comes from what you plant and that is something that can be logically evaluated. In fact, the whole process is very logical and repeatable and provable if you get the vision of it. And a lot of it comes by the doing of it. You can't know China unless you go there. I can tell you all about it, but if you won't get on the boat or you won't accept that boats float and that you will arrive safely , then well.......you get my point. You can even talk about China all day and look at pictures and think it exists but until you get in the boat and go in that direction, you can't know. I think this is why you hear LDS people say stuff like " I know that is true....etc" because they got on the boat.....

Please understand that I believe that many churches have truth. Truth is truth wherever you live and whatever the circumstance. Truth is universal that way. And the spirit will testify of truth point by point.

Another scripture of importance here......

D&C 130: 20-21

"There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundation of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated --

And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."

Edited October 20, 2008 by Misshalfway

[DigitalShadow]

Faith is a choice.

Did I feel the Spirit? I CHOOSE the answer to that question.

Did I receive an answer to my prayer? Again, I CHOOSE the answer to that question.

It's all an experiment, like it says in Alma 32. Is obedience to the Gospel working for you? For me, YES.

So you make a choice, move forward, unsure, unknowing, testing what feels right. This is faith. If it works for you, you continue to move forward in that direction. I've done this my entire life and so far so good.

Every good thing in my life is a direct result of my activity in the LDS Church. I wouldn't leave it for anything.

So far my experiment yields no results. I do not feel the spirit no matter how much I try. (still trying as urged by my wife and members of the forum)

I also feel there are many good things in my life, however I have never had faith in any religion, so I don't think it comes from any particular church.

[DigitalShadow]

Maybe it's my imagination, but I've noticed that very few people who are non-LDS and who attend a church regularly, stay in one religion. Often they have changed religions several times. (I'm not talking about those who claim a religion, but seldom/never go.)

Has anyone else noticed this?

I wouldn't know, I was born and raised agnostic and remain that way. I will say that I have noticed LDS members (in utah at least) tend to be far more enthusiastic about religion than others in the United States. There are still countries in the world that are ruled by strict religious belief though, far more than Utah, but I wouldn't recommend visiting them.