- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Cadence wrote:
Does believing something make it true?
Yes. On some levels, and in some ways, I think it does. Perception is reality. Belief is a form of perception, a conclusion and view of meaning from the world around us.
I perceive something I label “God.” This is a word for the experience; therfore, I believe God is exists (is true). My belief is an expression of truth in the the reality I perceive and experience.
Nephi uses an interesting explanation of “truth” when he says, in summary: Quote:I am writing this according to my own understanding, with my own hand. Therefore, I know that it is true.
Since I have no problem admitting I don’t know much universal Truth, Nephi’s definition really works for me – even though it means my “truth” now is not the same as my “truth” 20 years ago – or as my “truth” 20 years from now, I hope.
Old-Timer wrote:Absolutely and universally? Of course not. Individually and uniquely? Sure.
Honest question for you Cadence:
Quote:What is the point of your last question?
Is it to gain the perspectives of the people here – or to argue a point – or to downplay someone else’s comment – or something else?
Quote:So what?
Why is it important for us as individuals to avoid believing something just because it might not be absolute, universal Truth?
I ask “does believing something make it true” because this question fascinates me. I so often hear individuals say “They know Joseph Smith was a Prophet” or ” I know the church is true”, because they believe it it is true. But how do they really know? Other than a few individuals in history who may have the privilege of seeing God belief is generally obtained through an emotional or what we call a spiritual experience. So how does that qualify as a determiner of truth? I have had spiritual experiences that revealed things to me that ended up being wrong and even detrimental to my well being. Hence a conflict developed in my mind between my spiritual witness and reality. They were not compatible. So I have become skeptical that a spiritual witness or belief in something in relation to God is always accurate or truthful.
I am like many who want to believe in Christ and God but because of my logical nature I struggle for something that is tangible to me. What that is I am not sure. When I pray I ask God one question. Are you there? I do not even know how he would answer me to the degree that I would not doubt, but I believe he can if he chooses to. I want to know God not just believe in God as I do now. Hence I want to know the truth of God.
I have pretty strong debunking tendencies too. It’s not that I’m out to pop other people’s balloons. It’s that I want to get to the bottom of it all. I want the truth. And Harmony often gets in the way. I think that lowering the bar for revelation is very similar to denying revelation. The difference in magnitude between “feeling a prompting” and “speaking with God face to face” is enormous. I suspect that many who don’t really believe in direct revelation, express their doubt indirectly by focusing on notions like inspiration. Which may be polite, or may help avoid inner turmoil, but I’d rather have all the cards on the table.
allquieton wrote:I have pretty strong debunking tendencies too. It’s not that I’m out to pop other people’s balloons. It’s that I want to get to the bottom of it all. I want the truth. And Harmony often gets in the way.
Sigh. The great remaining stumbling block. That conflict between truth and harmony. I think the solution is hidden in discovering that Harmony IS truth. So whatever we do that maximizes harmony really now and in the future, that is the best course. “Truth” is the servant of love.
allquieton wrote:I think that lowering the bar for revelation is very similar to denying revelation.
The difference in magnitude between “feeling a prompting” and “speaking with God face to face” is enormous. I suspect that many who don’t really believe in direct revelation, express their doubt indirectly by focusing on notions like inspiration. Which may be polite, or may help avoid inner turmoil, but I’d rather have all the cards on the table.
What a great post (together with its previous)! This is a wonderful expression of the difficulty of Stage 4, which is the Stage that brings us to this site.
I don’t want to bear my testimony to you. I don’t even like that phrase. But I will affirm to you that I very much DO believe in revelation, and yes, there is a big difference between “feeling a prompting” and “speaking with God face to face”. But until we have done both, we don’t really know the difference.
Are we wishing the brethren would see God face to face, or are we seeking the face of God ourselves? The answer to that question lies along the way to Stage 5.
Well, I started reading up on Fowler. But I’m finding it pretty difficult to relate to much of it. Also a lot of his ideas and descriptions seem vague. How is he defining “faith?” There ought to be a simple quiz you can take to suggest what stage you are at, according to Fowler.
Quote:I think that lowering the bar for revelation is very similar to denying revelation.
Fwiw, I think “lowering the bar on revelation” from face-to-face communication to inspiration is reality – and allows revelation to be available to all. I want that, so it’s not lowering the bar at all to me.
I have had a few truly amazing experiences with intense revelation. I believe in revelation of many degrees of intensity and forms. I don’t want revelation to be limited to the few who see (or profess to see) God. I want revelation to be available to ME -and to YOU. From my own experiences, I can say that I know it is. Therefore, it doesn’t have to be face-to-face communication for me.
Finally, I have no idea whether or not our current apostles have seen and talked with God. Honestly, I doubt in this day and age they would tell us even if they had. I mean that completely. I truly don’t believe they would tell us if they had.
When I finally broke down and checked out the book, I was glad I did. Summaries only get you so far. Isn’t that what we hear in church all the time? Hit the texts, children? Read The Sermon on the Mount (and all the gospels)–in an alternate translation or two. Read the Bhagavad Gita. Read James Fowler. Read Joseph Campbell. Read about Emperor Ashoka and Saint Francesco of Assisi and Perpetua (and Felicity). Read what lights you afire and blows your mind to bits. Ray, I guess I could have been more clear. I mean that being satisfied with a prophet receiving nothing more than promptings is unsettling for me. That is where the bar has been lowered I think.
Of course I am all for everyone receiving revelation. But I also like to believe and do believe that some very righteous people out there have seen God. Just as it describes in the scriptures. I also hope and believe this is possible for anyone, as God wills.
BTW–why do you think they wouldn’t they tell us?
Tom, I have some reservations with your statement “Harmony IS truth.” I believe Harmony in your heart with your spirit and the spirit of god is truth. That does not always coincide with harmony with all others. In fact when others are not living with harmony in their hearts, then likely your actions of living with harmony within your own heart will emphasize their own disharmony. Typically when this happens people tend to blame their own disharmony on those that are living with harmony in their heart. What I tend to have problems with is when this blame comes my way I am motivated to act in ways that cause disharmony in my heart and I blame others for my disharmony and it becomes a vicious cycle.
Now I think I likely explained my thoughts as clearly as mud.
allquieton, 1) I think in our day, such statements (even if totally true) would cause such ridicule and scorn within the world-wide media that they would do more damage to the Church than good.
2) I think the focus in our day is much more on gaining a personal witness of things and not relying on the witness of others than it was in the beginning of the Church. I think that has to be the case as a religion (or any organization) grows and matures. The beginning of almost anything can be grand and epic and chaotic and confrontational, but for it to sustain growth and mature the “radicalness” must give way to stability and steadiness – and claims to have seen and talked with God face-to-face don’t fit stability and steadiness.
3) I think such statements (even if totally true) would create an expectation among believers that would lead to intense efforts to see God literally face-to-face – and implicit ranking of righteousness toward the apostles based on who said they had seen God thus. That’s not a good situation.
4) Finally and foundationally, there are almost NO claims of seeing God, the Father, face-to-face in our canonized scriptures, and there are almost NO claims of seeing Jesus, the Christ, face-to-face either – at least that are recorded in such a way as to completely rule out visions rather than visitations.
Think about this:
When in the entire history of our canonized scripture do we have accounts of face-to-face interaction with God?
Adam: the beginning of mankind
Moses: the beignning of the creation of the nation of Israel
Jared: the beginning of the divine settling of the promised land, if you will
Joseph Smith: the beginning of the Restoration (vision or face-to-face is debatable)
What other prophets in our scripture have, without question, written about seeing God face-to-face – not in a vision, but actually face-to-face?
Nephi and Jacob: the beginning of the Nephite civilization (in vision)
Jesus: the beginning of Christianity? (NO; we have no record of Jesus seeing “the Father” face-to-face in mortality.)
Paul: the beginning of the missionary focus of Christianity (in vision)
Joseph Smith: the beginning of the Restoration (but, in the case of the Father, it appears that this was in a vision, not face-to-face – and the entire vision vs. face-to-face visitation is debatable)
Notice something? Every instance in our canon that is explicitly face-to-face is in an Old Testament time period or setting. Maybe this is one of those “as far as it is translated correctly” issues – or maybe it is that those who see God face-to-face simply don’t talk about it. I don’t know.
5) Thus, I don’t think it’s how God generally works, and I think if He does appear thus to someone He probably adds the “go and tell no man” command to the visits.
Just my opinion, obviously, but it’s how I see this issue.
Gail wrote:Now I think I likely explained my thoughts as clearly as mud.
I like it just fine. Thanks for adding.
With statements like these:
Quote:No man hath seen God at any time in the flesh unless quickened (transfigured) by the Spirit (see D&C 67:11)
Quote:Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery reported that “the veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.” D&C110
Quote:President Joseph F. Smith wrote, “As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me.” D&C 138
As I look at these and some of the points Ray makes about questionable accounts of anyone in history seeing God face to face, perhaps we assume too much that prophets have had literal contact with God, and therefore, modern revelation isn’t so far off of any other revelation in the scriptures throughout history.
They testify of God, but does it matter if a “burning bush” delivers truth or a resurrected personage with flesh and bone delivers the message? The truth is in the message, not the form of messenger, right?
I believe in personal revelation to gain answers, but revelation seems to be spiritual in nature…and not so physical or of this world. That does not make the revelation less valuable to me…just requires faith and accepting things with a different set of eyes than I use to navigate in this world.
It could be the same for prophets (only they’re smarter than I am).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.