Exploring religious theory

[DigitalShadow]

If one has a testimony of and understands the order of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, that person would not need to consider such a possibility. Knowing that this church has the true full priesthood authority, such a commandment from God could not come to any old person- it must come from the Lord through the head of His church.

We only have the right to personal revelation with our own personal stewardships. We have no right to receive revelation on behalf of others outside our stewardship.

If you believe that Joseph Smith received such revelation that went against all churches at the time, wouldn't it be possible for other individuals to do so? If the head of His church is not acting in accordance with His will, then why wouldn't the revelation come to someone else? Is that not what happened in Joseph Smith's time? If Joseph Smith had believed that it is not possible to receive personal revelation that goes against the esablished churches, the LDS church would not be in existance right now.

[DigitalShadow]

Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat; Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.(3 Ne. 14:13-20)

Do you believe there is a God?

Sincerely,

Vanhin

I believe in the possibility of God. I can't say I've seen (or felt) enough evidence to say that I believe in God with any sort of confidence.

[DigitalShadow]

The wind blows and we feel it. Wind exists.

The sun shines and we feel it. The sun -- so far away! -- exists.

We eat a big bowl of ice cream at midnight and we can feel the heartburn.

We feel a lot of things. Feeling is a very acceptable way to receive input information upon which to base conclusions.

The Holy Ghost and the Spirit cause sensations in the human body (including the mind and heart) that can be felt, yes. But they are forces in the universe that (likely) come to us over great distances (or where from?), not internal electrical and chemical (emotional) processes. Our bodies are instruments capable of capturing input from the Holy Ghost.

It's not a mental theory that can be laid out. It will and always will be experiential. It is a journey that no one can take for another (parable of the ten virgins' oil in the lamp). A person can only trust -- yes, trust -- enough to take a few steps into the promises that Jesus Christ has given us. There is no other way by which these things can be understood or become of any use to an individual.

Yes feelings are a valid way to receive input which conclusions can be based on, but the scope of what those feelings can tell us is what I am talking about here.

We feel the wind blowing and conclude that there is a giant fan very far away that is turned on a lot of the time. We examine the emperical evidence and determine that the wind we feel is a natural phenomenon caused mostly by temperature differentials.

We feel see the sun shining and feel its heat and therefore conclude that there is a giant hot yellow thing revolving around us. We examine the emperical evidence and determine that our planet along with the others is actually revolving around a giant fusion reactor billions of miles away.

We eat a big bowl of ice cream at midnight and conclude that it is a bad idea since we feel pain later. We examine the emperical evidence and learn the specific causes of it and how to avoid other instances of upset stomach beyond just the one case of ice cream at midnight.

Feelings are supplimented with emperical evidence to create well formed conclusions. I still don't see any good arguments to take some beliefs solely on the subjective experience.

[Misshalfway]

I apologize if I implied that faith is somehow a sign of weakness. I know it is not an easy task, I am merely pointing out that it doesn't make sense to me. The fact that something is not easy does not make it inherently right. I have noticed that there are truly faithful of every faith who all feel that they are being guided to the right path and that all of the other truly faithful of other faiths are either slightly or very misguided. To me this is a good reason to be cautious of faith in general, especially since many attrocities are committed in the name of faith.

I know it doesn't make sense. There have been many things within my own faith....and the world frankly that don't make sense to me. For me, I hang on to my own intuition more tightly that others. I know that thinking logically or using reason alone was not something that has come to my understanding easily. Sometimes I listen to these discussions and the stuff goes right over my head. WHOOSH! :)

I think that the point I am trying to make is two fold. People make lots of choices in this world for hosts of different reasons. Trying to pin down human kind to one set of expectations is like trying to hold a cloud in your hands. Mankind is inherently wild, if you will, and certainly not predictable. They don't follow natural law like our world does.

And secondly, no one can give the knowledge that faith is the right thing. It is a journey only for the individual. The knowledge can ONLY come if one walks in the dark long enough to get to the light on the other side. You can't get the knowledge first, and then walk. You can get educated about possible outcomes. You can listen to the testimonies of others and wisdom of trusted individuals and trust the message. You can listen to that conscience or intuition inside of you to tell you if you are on the right track. And if a person were to give themselves up to it for a time.....what would they really loose in the attempt???

Discussion is an important and enlightening part of the quest. But people come to Christ one person at a time. The miracle happens in the quiet and hidden parts of the human heart and mind. No one can put that knowledge there for you. No one can go to the gym and lift the weights for someone else. The quest is an individual one and so is the fruit.

But it can and will happen for you IF you put into place all the peices that are required.

D&C 130

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

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

[Misshalfway]

Yes feelings are a valid way to receive input which conclusions can be based on, but the scope of what those feelings can tell us is what I am talking about here.

We feel the wind blowing and conclude that there is a giant fan very far away that is turned on a lot of the time. We examine the emperical evidence and determine that the wind we feel is a natural phenomenon caused mostly by temperature differentials.

We feel see the sun shining and feel its heat and therefore conclude that there is a giant hot yellow thing revolving around us. We examine the emperical evidence and determine that our planet along with the others is actually revolving around a giant fusion reactor billions of miles away.

We eat a big bowl of ice cream at midnight and conclude that it is a bad idea since we feel pain later. We examine the emperical evidence and learn the specific causes of it and how to avoid other instances of upset stomach beyond just the one case of ice cream at midnight.

Feelings are supplimented with emperical evidence to create well formed conclusions. I still don't see any good arguments to take some beliefs solely on the subjective experience.

Faith isn't a sure knowledge. Not at first. Sometimes you just have to plow forward because you see somewhere in your mind it might be true. The idea comes before the realization.....IE. The wright brothers, the lightbulb...etc.

EDIT: Skepticism is part of those feelings. There were prolly many skeptical that a little bit of wire and glass could produce light.

[Vanhin]

I believe in the possibility of God. I can't say I've seen (or felt) enough evidence to say that I believe in God with any sort of confidence.

Well, that is good. It is probably wise not to rule such a thing out, just in case anyway... :)

I would say, that finding the answer to that question is most important at this juncture. It's going to be pretty difficult to have faith in any religious tradition without first believing in a God to begin with. If we don't believe for sure that there is a God, then believing that He would speak to us will prove to be problematic; seeing that faith is a requirement for receiving any kind of witness from Him.

What we claim is that there is a God, and that he is very much interested in making his will known to us. He has, throughout time, called righteous men as prophets. The prophets know from personal firsthand experience that there is a God. Take Joseph Smith, for instance. He claimed that two glorious Personages appeared to him and spoke to him. One of them called him by name, pointed to the other, and said "This is my beloved Son. Hear him!" (Joseph Smith—History 1).

God reveals his will to the prophet, and commands him to teach it to others. Prophets become witnesses of the reality of God, and his message to us. Others, upon hearing the message, can know that it is true. But it takes and act of faith. Prayer, is such and act.

Now because you haven't completely ruled out the possibility of the existence of God, if you can allow that to become even a desire to have faith, then you have something to work with. Take a few minutes, when you have some time to ponder these things, and when you are ready to do this, and try another experiment.

Here is the experiment. Read carefully the following words of a missionary named Aaron from the Book of Mormon, Alma 22:7-26 . Ponder the story for a bit, and then simply kneel at your bedside (or where ever), and do the most preposterous thing... pray. Start out by saying, "Dear Heavenly Father", and then pour out your soul to him. Ask him if he really exists. When you are done, close in "...the name of Jesus Christ, amen.". If you will have just a particle of faith, and you sincerely ask, God will make himself known to you. You don't need a priest, or a missionary, or a prophet to convince you of it. God himself will answer your humble prayer. I can promise you that.

Now, it's up to you if you will try the experiment. We claim that there is no other way to gain this kind of knowledge, so if you are looking for some other kind of proof, you won't find it until it's too late. So, give it a shot. What can it really hurt?

Kind regards,

Vanhin

[Guest tomk]

Yes feelings are a valid way to receive input which conclusions can be based on, but the scope of what those feelings can tell us is what I am talking about here.

We feel the wind blowing and conclude that there is a giant fan very far away that is turned on a lot of the time. We examine the emperical evidence and determine that the wind we feel is a natural phenomenon caused mostly by temperature differentials.

We feel see the sun shining and feel its heat and therefore conclude that there is a giant hot yellow thing revolving around us. We examine the emperical evidence and determine that our planet along with the others is actually revolving around a giant fusion reactor billions of miles away.

We eat a big bowl of ice cream at midnight and conclude that it is a bad idea since we feel pain later. We examine the emperical evidence and learn the specific causes of it and how to avoid other instances of upset stomach beyond just the one case of ice cream at midnight.

Feelings are supplimented with emperical evidence to create well formed conclusions. I still don't see any good arguments to take some beliefs solely on the subjective experience.

Context is important. Timing is important.

For me, the timing and context of the witness was crucial to my understanding what was being witnessed to me when I prayed about the Book of Mormon.

Let me ask you some strange questions. Please understand that I ask them in an effort to help you understand why the subjective experience IS and CAN be a valid and reliable way to receive truth.

Can you describe the love you have for your wife?

When did you realize you wanted to marry her? Was it based on the scientific method?

Do you care whether she lives or dies?

Why do you care? Is it just because of a bunch of chemical processes?

How would you feel if she stopped loving you back?

If she divorced you, would you just shrug your shoulders in puzzlement and explain it away as "she just has her chemical processes off."

You don't have to answer any of that -- but can you see where I am going with this?

Human are not so coldly calculating. We are creatures of feeling and emotion. Among our basic needs are love and a sense of family.

[Misshalfway]

Feelings are supplimented with emperical evidence to create well formed conclusions. I still don't see any good arguments to take some beliefs solely on the subjective experience.

Sorry. I should post all my comments in one. But I am doing three things at once. So forgive me.

I don't think that any member of this church lives on feelings alone. The Lord is a giver of gifts and it is those gifts that keep us all going. And it is usually not one experience that lives on thru-out our lives. It is a series of spiritual experiences that build together to help us understand and drive us to further devotion and commitment.

Had I prayed and not gotten the answers I have in my life, I most surely wouldn't be where I am today. I would prolly be making very different choices. But I DO have the evidence. It is evidence only for me to taste, but it is most certainly evidence.

[rameumptom]

I have already tried planting that seed. I think it may have died from not watering it enough, I'm not sure. In any case, I see your point and recognize that many people are guided by the "spirit" and it works well for them.

My point is that many people allow themselves to be guided by their "spirit." These people come to a staggering variety of conclusions based on that guidance. By definition then, being guided by the "spirit" is an unreliable method. It does not produce reproducable results and often leads people astray. I have seen nothing in this discussion or even these forums to refute this point other than people telling me "it doesn't matter what other people do" which is completely irrelevant since I don't care what they believe, their differing beliefs attest to how unreliable their method is.

Not all religions are Holy Ghost-based. Even some Christian religions do not believe the Holy Ghost does anything for us in particular.

Oriental religions tend towards worshiping deceased ancestral spirits. These do not work in the same way as the LDS view the Holy Ghost working.

Hinduism and Buddhism also believe in the spirits of beings that move or transmute between bodies (reincarnation). There is the belief of transcended Buddhas and gods that can assist us in reaching Nirvana, or the ocean of souls.

Native Americans believe in spirits also, but do not necessarily believe they are guided by a specific one.

However, LDS believe all people are born with a conscience (light of Christ) that tells them right from wrong. God has given us the challenge of trying to find as much light and truth in this world as possible, with the opportunity to obtain more in the Spirit World and next life as we are ready and willing to receive it. God is not going to condemn to hell the individual who was born in the Amazon jungles a thousand years prior to Christ's birth, simply because he did not have the chance to hear the gospel fullness. He will be judged on the truths he received in life and embraced, as well as the truths he will accept in the Spirit World and beyond.

The thing is, most other religions do not view the Holy Spirit or its guidance in the same way LDS do. However, most believe they have contact with the other world - if not with God/god, then with animal/human spirits that influence them. This is very suggestive of our Spirit World (which is upon the earth), and the ability for the veil between us and them to be thin occasionally.

[DigitalShadow]

Context is important. Timing is important.

For me, the timing and context of the witness was crucial to my understanding what was being witnessed to me when I prayed about the Book of Mormon.

Let me ask you some strange questions. Please understand that I ask them in an effort to help you understand why the subjective experience IS and CAN be a valid and reliable way to receive truth.

Can you describe the love you have for your wife?

When did you realize you wanted to marry her? Was it based on the scientific method?

Do you care whether she lives or dies?

Why do you care? Is it just because of a bunch of chemical processes?

How would you feel if she stopped loving you back?

If she divorced you, would you just shrug your shoulders in puzzlement and explain it away as "she just has her chemical processes off."

You don't have to answer any of that -- but can you see where I am going with this?

Human are not so coldly calculating. We are creatures of feeling and emotion. Among our basic needs are love and a sense of family.

Regardless of what causes the feeling of love, it exists and is a very powerful drive for us humans. I love my wife and she loves me. I have seen emperical evidence to that effect in the way she treats me. If I had a crush on her and believed she loved me out of feelings despite emperical evidence that she doesn't love me, that's called a stalker.

I see where you are going but I don't think it is a proper conclusion. If you believe that love could be a series of chemical reactions evolved to ensure propagation of our species, that does not mean that you don't feel it just as much as the person that believes it is a magical gift from God. You could just as easily state that love is just a trick that God plays on us to get us to form a union, does that mean you should feel any differently about your wife?

[DigitalShadow]

Not all religions are Holy Ghost-based. Even some Christian religions do not believe the Holy Ghost does anything for us in particular.

Oriental religions tend towards worshiping deceased ancestral spirits. These do not work in the same way as the LDS view the Holy Ghost working.

Hinduism and Buddhism also believe in the spirits of beings that move or transmute between bodies (reincarnation). There is the belief of transcended Buddhas and gods that can assist us in reaching Nirvana, or the ocean of souls.

Native Americans believe in spirits also, but do not necessarily believe they are guided by a specific one.

However, LDS believe all people are born with a conscience (light of Christ) that tells them right from wrong. God has given us the challenge of trying to find as much light and truth in this world as possible, with the opportunity to obtain more in the Spirit World and next life as we are ready and willing to receive it. God is not going to condemn to hell the individual who was born in the Amazon jungles a thousand years prior to Christ's birth, simply because he did not have the chance to hear the gospel fullness. He will be judged on the truths he received in life and embraced, as well as the truths he will accept in the Spirit World and beyond.

The thing is, most other religions do not view the Holy Spirit or its guidance in the same way LDS do. However, most believe they have contact with the other world - if not with God/god, then with animal/human spirits that influence them. This is very suggestive of our Spirit World (which is upon the earth), and the ability for the veil between us and them to be thin occasionally.

Regardless of what you base your faith on, it is then confirmed by feelings. What you call those feelings is just semantics, I used "spirit" because it is most familiar to the people of this forum.

[Guest tomk]

Regardless of what causes the feeling of love, it exists and is a very powerful drive for us humans. I love my wife and she loves me. I have seen emperical evidence to that effect in the way she treats me. If I had a crush on her and believed she loved me out of feelings despite emperical evidence that she doesn't love me, that's called a stalker.

I see where you are going but I don't think it is a proper conclusion. If you believe that love could be a series of chemical reactions evolved to ensure propagation of our species, that does not mean that you don't feel it just as much as the person that believes it is a magical gift from God. You could just as easily state that love is just a trick that God plays on us to get us to form a union, does that mean you should feel any differently about your wife?

DS:

I see my plan didn't work. :)

Do you really buy this viewpoint you are selling? Do you really believe all of this that you are saying...about love being "just" a chemical process?

Is that all love is to you?

Tom

[rural]

What do you mean "just"? That chemical process that we call love was made by God. What does it matter if it's chemical in nature?

[Guest tomk]

Regardless of what causes the feeling of love, it exists and is a very powerful drive for us humans. I love my wife and she loves me. I have seen emperical evidence to that effect in the way she treats me. If I had a crush on her and believed she loved me out of feelings despite emperical evidence that she doesn't love me, that's called a stalker.

I see where you are going but I don't think it is a proper conclusion. If you believe that love could be a series of chemical reactions evolved to ensure propagation of our species, that does not mean that you don't feel it just as much as the person that believes it is a magical gift from God. You could just as easily state that love is just a trick that God plays on us to get us to form a union, does that mean you should feel any differently about your wife?

Notice what I bolded.

Now apply that to this context:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

So if you see 1,000 churches all claiming to be true, you can know that they cannot all be true. It says few there be that find it. That is why a witness of the Book of Mormon is so crucial.

15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

You cannot really be speaking to God and then bring to pass atrocities in His name. And for those who do profess to be doing good, but are knowingly doing evil in the name of God, there will be a reckoning.

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

[Guest tomk]

DS:

By your own words - empirical evidence can always be trumped.

That is why God uses our feelings to give us that witness. The influence of the Holy Ghost (feelings of peace and surety) is trumped only at our own peril.

[DigitalShadow]

DS:

I see my plan didn't work. :)

Do you really buy this viewpoint you are selling? Do you really believe all of this that you are saying...about love being "just" a chemical process?

Is that all love is to you?

Tom

My point is that it doesn't matter what causes love. Whether it was designed by God as a means to join us or whether it evolved out necessity for propagating our species, that does not detract from the feelings of love that we give an receive. Saying that our emotions are a result of the chemicals in our brain does not make them any less real than if they were originated in some type of immortal soul. The mechanism is irrelevant.

[rural]

I think shifting chemicals in our brain IS our immortal soul.

[DigitalShadow]

DS:

By your own words - empirical evidence can always be trumped.

That is why God uses our feelings to give us that witness. The influence of the Holy Ghost (feelings of peace and surety) is trumped only at our own peril.

Yes, that is the strength of it. I don't understand how so many people see the idea of beliefs being changed based on evidence as such a weakness. Apparently many people would rather be unchangingly sure of something that could be wrong, than open to the most likely truth that the evidence presents.

[DigitalShadow]

I think shifting chemicals in our brain IS our immortal soul.

I think that we ARE the unique complex pattern of interconnecting synapses in our brain that is a combination of genetics and environment. Whether that pattern is preserved after death in some form or another, I cannot say, but if I were forced to define something as a "soul" it would be that.

[lostnfound]

An evolution vs. creationism thread would go absolutely nowhere, I can tell you right now what would happen:

Some of the people would say that evolution happens and is one of the many tools of God. Then some of the people would say that evolution is the most rediculous theory they have ever heard and proceed to give an argument from incredulity. Then some people, atheist and LDS scientist alike would present much evidence that evolution does happen and speciation is indeed possible through evolution. Then the people who don't believe evolution will say that it doesn't "prove" anything and proceed to go on about how evolution "only" a theory (completely misunderstanding the scientific use of the word theory) and it will go on and on back and forth.

Been there, done that, no one's mind will change one way or the other :)

your right.

[Guest tomk]

Yes, that is the strength of it. I don't understand how so many people see the idea of beliefs being changed based on evidence as such a weakness. Apparently many people would rather be unchangingly sure of something that could be wrong, than open to the most likely truth that the evidence presents.

What about being unchangingly sure of something that could be right?

Religion seeks to explain our actual reality, particularly in regard to our life before birth, our reason for existence and our fate after we die.

Religion is a progression, just like science is.

If you don't believe in God, then all subsequent discussion is pretty much moot.

If you do believe in God, then the question becomes do you believe in the actual God, or some other God?

If you believe in the actual God, then are you following the course He has laid out for you, or some other course?

[Guest tomk]

DS:

In all of your discussion about "it's a matter of interpretation" -- you seem to always lean towards doubting. Why is that?

Is there some reason why you cannot take your circumstances in life and attribute them to God?

What keeps you from being willing to try that experiement?

If there is nobody there, then you've lost just a little bit of time.

If there is "somebody there" then you will begin to experience a relationship with that Someone (He loves it when we recognize His hand in our lives. Gratitude is very powerful.)

[DigitalShadow]

What about being unchangingly sure of something that could be right?

Religion seeks to explain our actual reality, particularly in regard to our life before birth, our reason for existence and our fate after we die.

Religion is a progression, just like science is.

If you don't believe in God, then all subsequent discussion is pretty much moot.

If you do believe in God, then the question becomes do you believe in the actual God, or some other God?

If you believe in the actual God, then are you following the course He has laid out for you, or some other course?

My point is that I don't see the value of being unchangingly sure about anything. What is the point in closing your mind off to all other possibilities to give yourself a little more peace of mind? If your belief is truly the correct one, you shouldn't need faith or other self-serving logic to support it.

Religion says that God is real and that if you have enough faith, he'll prove it to you. I say that anything will feel real to you if you have enough faith in it, as is evidence by the multitude of wacky beliefs that people hold. We can discuss the subjective experience of "knowing God" all day, but if there is no emperical evidence to back it up, religion is like flavors of ice cream: whatever works for you is good, but there is no one "right" answer.

[DigitalShadow]

DS:

In all of your discussion about "it's a matter of interpretation" -- you seem to always lean towards doubting. Why is that?

Is there some reason why you cannot take your circumstances in life and attribute them to God?

What keeps you from being willing to try that experiement?

If there is nobody there, then you've lost just a little bit of time.

If there is "somebody there" then you will begin to experience a relationship with that Someone (He loves it when we recognize His hand in our lives. Gratitude is very powerful.)

I am willing to try that experiment, and in fact I have tried it a few times before to no avail. I give religion the benifet of the doubt and investigate the truth of various faiths, but nothing really stands out to me.

I have no problem attributing circumstances to whatever they seem to be caused by, but I have seen no more reason to attribute them to God than to a Flying Spaghetti Monster. You continually try to cast me as "unwilling" when I am more accurately "unconvinced". There is a distinct difference between the two.

[Guest tomk]

My point is that I don't see the value of being unchangingly sure about anything. What is the point in closing your mind off to all other possibilities to give yourself a little more peace of mind? If your belief is truly the correct one, you shouldn't need faith or other self-serving logic to support it.

Religion says that God is real and that if you have enough faith, he'll prove it to you. I say that anything will feel real to you if you have enough faith in it, as is evidence by the multitude of wacky beliefs that people hold. We can discuss the subjective experience of "knowing God" all day, but if there is no emperical evidence to back it up, religion is like flavors of ice cream: whatever works for you is good, but there is no one "right" answer.

What is the point in closing your mind off to all other possibilities to give yourself a little more peace of mind?

Well, in the first place, I don't consider myself to be closing my mind off to anything. My belief in God has expanded my mind to consider the beauty and majesty of what He is able to do with us if we are willing to let Him.

If your belief is truly the correct one, you shouldn't need faith or other self-serving logic to support it.

I would say "I need to" but rather "God requires it."

Religion says that God is real and that if you have enough faith, he'll prove it to you.

I agree. I would clarify that quality, and in whom that faith is directed, is favored over quantity. Faith "as a grain of mustard seed" is sufficient to move mountains.

I say that anything will feel real to you if you have enough faith in it, as is evidence by the multitude of wacky beliefs that people hold. We can discuss the subjective experience of "knowing God" all day, but if there is no emperical evidence to back it up, religion is like flavors of ice cream: whatever works for you is good, but there is no one "right" answer.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree. :)

While I grant everyone the right to believe what they want, I don't believe that "all roads lead to God." Other religions can prepare people for God's true church.