Three Powerful Books

[_Morley]

"Seek first the kingdom" is not the same as "first seek the kingdom". It does not mean that your seeking of the kingdom is a condition that you have to fulfill first before anything else can happen.

The verses about seeking first the kingdom of God say that the kingdom should be one's first priority because everything else one might need will come with it as an automatic bonus and so seeking the kingdom has zero opportunity cost. I don't see how this implies that one can move too far away from the kingdom to learn anything about it.

Nothing I came up with was as good an explanation as this, PG.

[Guest]

I can only score...accurately...that in which I am familiar with first person. I will let a Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim, Catholic, or any other religious person speak for themselves.

Regards,
MG

^Herein lies the problem you are having in this thread. You aren't assessing probability, you are assessing your level of belief in. If Ellen White and Joseph Smith are equal in character and honesty, and they are the only two options in the quest for a one true Church, the probability of each one being the true one is 50/50 regardless of what you believe. The odds diminish proportionally with each new claimant to the "one true Church" that you include in the consideration, regardless of which one you personally hold as favourite.

Of course, the odds for each will also diminish (again, regardless of your personal favourite) as character and honesty flaws are discovered with each claimant. It is clear Joseph Smith had significant character and honesty flaws, and so the probability of him promoting the actual true Church are significantly reduced in line with those flaws.

You are putting forward (whether you acknowledge this or not) that the sensations you feel trump the laws of probability. They don't. Because you cannot identify those sensations as being reliably what you think they are. You talk of the voice of the spirit and of people not knowing what that sounds like until they seek it. But the flaw in that thinking is that if you don't know what it sounds like in the first place, you will never reliably know what to sounds like when you hear it. For instance, do the spiritual promptings that Jehovahs Witnesses feel about their religion hold any more or less credibility than yours in the general discussion about probability? No, they don't. Regardless of your personal interpretation of something you feel. The probabilities of Muslims being right, Jehovahs Witnesses being right, Moonies being right, Latter Day Saints being right, Scientologists being right etc ad infinitum are equal when considered using purely subjective measures such as the voice of the spirit.

You need to be able to see the distinction in the conversation and set aside your personal belief favouritism to be able to adequately understand the probabilities being discussed.

[_Themis]

Jesus taught that we should seek FIRST the kingdom of God. Otherwise, in my opinion, we move farther and farther away. The language of the Spirit then becomes foreign. We may hear it, but it doesn’t penetrate our heart as it may have once done.

The BS we find in many religions in which they cannot agree on what the language of the spirit is communicating. Really just an excuse to not back up how one can reasonably say they know. Know in these settings is not real knowledge but an expression of feeling certain. Just watch LDS at a testimony meeting try and outdo do each other on how well they know the church is true or God exists. One will say they know it is true. The next will say they know beyond a shadow of a doubt. The next will say they know with every fiber of their being. This kind of repetition is how many religions keep their followers in a believing state. Didn't some church leader say a testimony can be found in the bearing of it. :rolleyes:

Funny how those who used to know but admit now they didn't must have never know the spirit or magically forgotten the experience. Doesn't sound like something you can reasonably say no amount of evidence should be able to change ones interpretation.

[_mentalgymnast]

I can only score...accurately...that in which I am familiar with first person. I will let a Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim, Catholic, or any other religious person speak for themselves.

That's strange, because you seem pretty willing to 'score' honor's experience.

Honor may have at one time understood that language of the Spirit, but he has forgotten it or more likely reinterpreted it as being something else.

Perhaps you should let him speak for himself, too.

Contextually we were talking about other organized religions and religious people. I don’t think he makes any claims at being religious. I am fairly confident that he at one time was a member of the church and knew the language of the Spirit but has now reinterpreted his experiences. I’m happy to let him add anything or make corrections to what was said within the context that I said it.

When I said that I can only score that which I’ve experienced I suppose that within the context of Mormonism both honor and I may have had somewhat similar experiences. I felt more of a kinship to his previous experience than I can to those of other religious faiths.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

And if we’ve never heard the language of the Spirit in the first place, it would be foreign to us until we seek it. The scriptures teach also that to the natural man the things of God are foolishness and are far from his heart.

Or in other words, the things of God just don’t make sense. There is a language/understanding barrier.

Wow.

Would you like to more fully express yourself here? Apparently you have a problem with what I said? Care to spell it out?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Jesus taught that we should seek FIRST the kingdom of God. Otherwise, in my opinion, we move farther and farther away. The language of the Spirit then becomes foreign. We may hear it, but it doesn’t penetrate our heart as it may have once done.

"Seek first the kingdom" is not the same as "first seek the kingdom". It does not mean that your seeking of the kingdom is a condition that you have to fulfill first before anything else can happen.

The verses about seeking first the kingdom of God say that the kingdom should be one's first priority because everything else one might need will come with it as an automatic bonus and so seeking the kingdom has zero opportunity cost. I don't see how this implies that one can move too far away from the kingdom to learn anything about it.

My interpretation is that seeking the kingdom of God first is a lifelong pursuit. If we don’t keep the kingdom of God squarely in our sites we can stray off course rather quickly.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG. Let's see if I have this.

You speak the language of science, philosophy, and the spirit so can understand everything.

We just speak the language of the science and philosophy but can't understand the language of the spirit so we can't understand anything you're saying when you speak spirit language.

You and those of your tribe are superior in your understanding because of this.

Please correct me where I've got it wrong.

What is your understanding in regards to the language of the Spirit at this point in your life? Is God involved in that communication/process? As you listen to the language of a Spirit what is it that you hear and/or experience?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I can only score...accurately...that in which I am familiar with first person. I will let a Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim, Catholic, or any other religious person speak for themselves.

Regards,
MG

^Herein lies the problem you are having in this thread.

I’m really not seeing that there’s a problem.

You aren't assessing probability, you are assessing your level of belief in. If Ellen White and Joseph Smith are equal in character and honesty, and they are the only two options in the quest for a one true Church, the probability of each one being the true one is 50/50 regardless of what you believe. The odds diminish proportionally with each new claimant to the "one true Church" that you include in the consideration, regardless of which one you personally hold as favourite.

Yes, from the outside looking in and with no previous bias or in depth knowledge which are part of the equation I would agree.

Of course, the odds for each will also diminish (again, regardless of your personal favourite) as character and honesty flaws are discovered with each claimant. It is clear Joseph Smith had significant character and honesty flaws, and so the probability of him promoting the actual true Church are significantly reduced in line with those flaws.

Here is where we differ. If Joseph Smith was pure in heart but also subject to the foibles of man and continued throughout his life repenting of those things which he found himself doing that were against God’s will, then I really don’t have an issue with God bringing him along, teaching him, and using him and his talents in restoring His church.

You are putting forward (whether you acknowledge this or not) that the sensations you feel trump the laws of probability. They don't. Because you cannot identify those sensations as being reliably what you think they are. You talk of the voice of the spirit and of people not knowing what that sounds like until they seek it. But the flaw in that thinking is that if you don't know what it sounds like in the first place, you will never reliably know what to sounds like when you hear it.

As I have already said I can only bear witness of my own experience. I am first person. I can’t speak for others in third person. They would have to speak for themselves. And as I said, I think we need to be very careful about placing much emphasis at all on emotions which are produced by the central nervous system. I think that the language of the Spirit referred to as the ‘still small voice’ comes as one relies upon and desires to live according to the word of God. Although my own experience also suggests that now and then there are experiences which I would classify as numinous and unexplainable...and sensational. But again, I can only speak first person from my own experience. I won’t judge others for the experiences that they claim to have. That is between them and their God.

For instance, do the spiritual promptings that Jehovahs Witnesses feel about their religion hold any more or less credibility than yours in the general discussion about probability? No, they don't. Regardless of your personal interpretation of something you feel. The probabilities of Muslims being right, Jehovahs Witnesses being right, Moonies being right, Latter Day Saints being right, Scientologists being right etc ad infinitum are equal when considered using purely subjective measures such as the voice of the spirit.

I don’t disagree. Objectively that is correct.

You need to be able to see the distinction in the conversation and set aside your personal belief favouritism to be able to adequately understand the probabilities being discussed.

I am fully aware of that. That’s why I continually stress that I am speaking first person. On that count, I am an expert.

I think this is a repeat of conversations that we’ve had before. It’s a question of whether or not we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Since we see similarities across various religious beliefs and systems do we throw them all out? Is no religious system true as a result?

Can there be a true and ‘living’ church in which “I the Lord am well pleased” and at the same time other religious faiths can also find themselves under the umbrella of God‘s approval and approbation? Can the Spirit live in the hearts of any child of God who is striving to do as best they can?

I think so.

As I said earlier in this thread I find it interesting that there are folks that seem to be ruthless in their attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why is it that this church receives so much attention from critics? You would think that they could just leave the church alone go on their merry way. Yes, I’ve heard some of the arguments as to why critics stick with it and continue with their attacks upon the church, but those arguments and reasons don’t really fly with me. I really believe that there is a ruthless intent to tear down the institution itself. If it were possible.

Fortunately, it’s not. The church will stand until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. And he will call it his own. Your efforts are in vain. Although, admittedly, you’ll peel a few off, relatively speaking, here and there.

Why don’t you find something else to do besides attacking the church and it’s members?

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

I can only score...accurately...that in which I am familiar with first person. I will let a Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim, Catholic, or any other religious person speak for themselves.

That's strange, because you seem pretty willing to 'score' honor's experience.

Honor may have at one time understood that language of the Spirit, but he has forgotten it or more likely reinterpreted it as being something else.

Perhaps you should let him speak for himself, too.

Contextually we were talking about other organized religions and religious people. I don’t think he makes any claims at being religious.

That is absolutely not true, mentalgymnast. Here’s an excerpt from his last comment before you said that:

Ok. So I have to experience what you've experienced to be able to claim a degree of certitude that you claim. What if I used to feel the same way and it turned out my more recent experiences proved to me I was wrong to understand those experiences in that way? What if my experience of prior belief and my more recent experience of realizing the LDS mythology of God is a fabrication is of a kind with your experience and evidence? Meaning what if I asserted if you experienced everything I've experienced you would realize the ideas you held about God up to then were illusions built on accepting myths and cultural biases? I mean, if your evidence is your experience and my evidence is my experience, they balance out, right? In which case, it seems the only honest response is it's possible but by no means probable let alone certain.

Your integrity is really lacking, mental.

I am fairly confident that he at one time was a member of the church and knew the language of the Spirit but has now reinterpreted his experiences. I’m happy to let him add anything or make corrections to what was said within the context that I said it.

Or, as Morley suggested, don’t “score” his comments, and let him speak for himself.

[_Lemmie]

As I have already said I can only bear witness of my own experience. I am first person. I can’t speak for others in third person.

:rolleyes:

Honor may have at one time understood that language of the Spirit, but he has forgotten it or more likely reinterpreted it as being something else.