The Astral Pulse

I got lost on the first sentence, about looking. It reminds me of something called "Practicing the Presence of God". It is very simple, but there was a book on the subject. The name says everything. Just constantly tell yourself that God is with you and watching even your thoughts. Can you imagine doing anything really negative with this reminder of the eternal looking over your shoulder?

Sorry that first sentence threw you off...I cut out the first part of the talk and pasted the rest.  As many here know, I am a Christian...and an astral projector.  Go figure.  Anyway, I thought this talk might interest a few people.  It's all about simplicity, really.

fides quaerens intellectum

Actually, I did not understand any of it from the first word on. The word "simplicity" means something to me, though.

There is no conflict between Christianity and astral projection. There are a lot of Christians who have a problem with it, though. Christianity seems to be a very social religion, and it does not appear to be easy for individual Christians to disagree with the main teachings of their particular branch.

actually, i think christianity has to be the easiest religion where a member can disagree with a main branch, because there are so many different "branches" that one can choose from. pretty sad really.

~kakkarot

Secret of Secrets

The best thing about true Christianity is that it allows total freedom.  And just for the record, I don't identify with 99% of other Christians...

fides quaerens intellectum

erm... yes.... what a wonderful rendition Peacefulwarrior.... I almost wants me to become a christian (not!)

do all christians have to word things in such a long winded convoluted way?
Nothing personal peacefulwarrior.. its just that your religious post there had all the halmarks of bore-inducing christian speal about it!

I fell asleap after the first line!
;-)

Douglas

Are you a mormon PeacefulWarrior?

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." St. Thomas Aquinas

I personally think Christianity is a tiny twig out of the end of some big limb going off from the trunk of the truth.. [Doc T's analogy sort of] That is why there are so many branches of christianity and so many choices to choose in finding your "religion".  If you ask me what is the main branch, I will say "I don't know" but that is what I am searching for.  The trunk..  

Sincerely, Blossom

First of all, I find it so interesting that whenever I, or anyone for that matter, posts something Christian here inevitably there are those who immediately become negative and persecutory...one thing that always pleases me is the fact that none of those who make deriding comments have any real evidence to support anything they say against the those who testify of experiences they have had.

One thing I can always say at the end of each day is that I never say anything negative about the spirituality of others.  "You believe this or that?  Great!  You experienced that!  Wonderful!"  I am always ready to respond like this.  I may not agree with others beliefs, but that only allows for interesting conversation and the sharing of spiritual experiences.

---------------------
Gandalf- first of all, I am sorry you found the discourse I delivered so "convoluted".   Next time before responding negatively about others spritual experiences and beliefs, you may want to meditate or pray regarding the things said.  "But the natural man breceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
----------------------
Nerezza- Yes, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
-----------------------
Blossom-
look no further!  
-----------------------

Love and peace to all!



fides quaerens intellectum

Like Buddhism, Christianity has more to worry about from its friends than its enemies. There will always be people who call themselves Christian for the wrong reasons, such as out of habit or because their parents told them so. It is another matter to consciously choose to follow Christ and to believe it is possible to become like Christ. Some people honestly believe they are Christian even though anyone watching them would know their goal is not heaven. People who attack Christianity have clear motives and goals. How do you explain people who call themselves Christian who do harm to the religion?

Hi PW

Why must you periodically enter these "We look to Christ" or "The lord is my light" sort of threads? As far as I know, this is a neutral site/forum & you are right we should respect others religous beliefs, which I'd say most of us do. However have you seen the Buddhists, Hindu's, Taoists, Satanists or whoever in here putting up their religous dogma & calling the thread "We" look to "Buddha" or "Allah" or "Vishnu"? Who is "we"?, shouldn't you have said "I", or that the people you copied text off are the "We".

Christianity is the most well known for it's total disregard for others beliefs & cultures & have killed millions for not believing what they believe. I never see Buddhists etc. coming to my door or posting dogmatic threads on this forum, blindly saying they "know" Buddha or God, when in fact they literally have never met or seen these people, & rely on their religous text that has about as much truth in it as Harry Potter.

Considering the bible was written by the conquering & occupying Romans hundreds of years after the characters of the bible had died, to me doesn't represent an accurate account of what Jesus was trying to acheive. Almost like America of today conquering Afghanistan, then writing a bible 300 years later to say how good Osama Bin Laden was & making money off him, when I'm sure he wasn't/isn't their best buddy.

Do people come onto your bible forums & say "We look towards the Astral"? You say that you think it is only fair to accept others religions & not dis them for it, but you keep posting these religous threads & pretend to speak for more than yourself. This thread I find is equal to bible bashers turning up to my door to convince me of THEIR beliefs! If you are so excited about your religion, why do you need to push it on others? Surely if it was so good, they would see that for themselves & approach YOU. Anything else, is you trying to force your beliefs on others.................that is not freedom, or autonomy or respect for others right to choose for themselves.

Imagine if I turned up on your LDS site & said "We look to the astral" & after people who are expecting to see something relating to the forum they are on turn and have a go at me, I then say "hey, I'm not being negative or dissin anybody in here, why do you do it to me"?...................well, what did you expect? If it was written in a manner that suggested this is how things are for YOU & not WE, it might have been better received.

90% of the material you write PW is great & I have no problem with, but no-one else in here feels as though it is necessary to push their religous beliefs on others, so why do you?

Mobius

Mobius, my friend, thank you for your opinion.  First of all, I am not forcing or trying to force anything on anyone...and if anyone here put up a thread that said "We look to the astral" I would be the first to read it with interest and enthusiasm.  People in here talk about their beliefs and experiences all the time and that's what keeps me coming back.  Also, the astral chat IS the thread that is open to all kinds of "chat"- and that's why I didn't go post this in the OBE Topic, if I did that then I think I would be guilty of what you are saying I do.

I am sorry if you find the 10% of what I post, about my beliefs, is not interesting or worthwhile and I invite you not to read that percentage.  According to you I do a pretty good job of letting you know exactly what my post is about in the subject line, eh?  And besides, "The Lord is my Light" post(s) are some of the most read and  replied to topics in the forum and generated a lot of fascinating and meaningful debate and conversation.  

I respect you and all other members of this forum, and that is why I post things so dear to my heart.  Thanks for your input, I have and will continue to evaluate carefully the things I post before I post them.
---------------------------
TOM-
What you say IS SO TRUE.  I find that the majority of people's concerns towards Christianity stem from the bone-head (for lack of a better term) things that many have done and continue to do in the name of Christ.  I am glad that you recognize this fact.  Thanks for pointing it out.

-Love and Peace to ALL!

(I think I am going to post something under the title "Looking to the Astral"...)

fides quaerens intellectum

I have read, or started to read a few threads like this that are basically lengthy excerpts from material gained from the web or via email.

Religions/beliefs aside, to me this site is all about personal growth and spiritual development. One of the things that I really like about this forum that is of great value towards this end, is it is a group of people who desire to help others through sharing their own personal experiences and revelations.

Pasting lengthy dissitatons of long winded writers does not tell me that the person contributing this to the forum is really any better for it, has had any real experiences as a result of reading it, or indeed has any thoughts of their own on the subject.

PeacefulWarrior, This posting of your obviously holds some value to your beliefs. Instead of subjecting the rest of us to the writings of someone else who we don't know from a bar of soap, why don't you give us your thoughts and perspective on the subject. What it means to you, your own personal experiences and insights and your own personal gains from it are more valuable than the pasted text of a most likely professional writer.

James:
I didn't know two pages was a lengthy dissertation!  Anyway, I do know what you mean...and although I hope no one is judging me personally by the things I choose to share or say in this forum, I do realize that the meaningful interactions can indeed lead to personal growth.
----------------------------------------------------------
To all:
I would love to share my personal thoughts about this post, the only I reason I haven't up to this point is that I have been terribly busy with work and my education....but I am going to take the time out now to do so, albeit a summarized version of what I would like to say.

The following is a very summarized version of my beliefs, which of course I view as the truth.  I do not know all things and therefore I do not profess to understand all truth....if you have any questions or comments I would love to share them (please forgive any grammatical errors):

I believe in God...the perfect being who organizes matter and intelligence.  The being that resides in the ETERNAL NOW that Robert Bruce talks about.  The being that commands us to grow and become perfected.  I believe this being is *Eloheim, which is the name for God that originally appeared at the beginning of the Old Testament.  Eloheim means "Gods"- therefore I believe we have a God of this world/universe, and I worship Him but I know there are other Gods.

I believe this God knows and loves each and everyone of us, and while He knows all things, from the beginning to the end, he has and is giving us experiences to test us and allow us to gain knowledge that we may one day become perfect...and create worlds and intelligences, just like He does.  I believe God is a perfected man and that Jesus Christ, our elder brother if you will, was the most advanced spirit in the pre-existence.  By pre-existence I mean that I believe that this life is a continuation of another life, and in the life before this one, we had only our subtle body, our spirit body, and then we chose to come to this planet and receive a physical body.  

We are here, in the "school of hard life experience", as Bruce puts it, in order to experience duality and to know the bitter from the sweet.  Christ, being the only man who ever lived a perfect life, after having taken upon himself all the mistakes and pain that man caused by sinning (sin= without God, separation from God) was re-united with a perfected physical body.  I believe that we will all be re-united (resurrected) with a perfected physical body because of what Christ did for us.  (And it is my personal belief that we can use this physical body in ways we cannot now, ie. travel instantaneously, etc. like we do in the astral, only that we can transcend and descend through any dimensional level...anyway, I don't want to get off track here).

Therefore everyone is "saved" regardless of whether they believe in Christ or not, there is NO HELL in the traditional sense for sinners and non-believers.  Everyone is eternal and besides a select few, almost no one really, all will experience a wonderful existence, one so wonderful we cannot imagine (unless you have transcended to the higher dimensional levels and had a glimpse at them).

BUT there is a difference between being saved and gaining ETERNAL LIFE.  Eternal life is the way God lives, in the eternal now.  Although He, and dare I say She (we believe in eternal companionship) are perfect and all powerful, the Gods never cease to grow in glory and power and happiness and knowledge because they continue to organize intelligence and matter, both subtle matter and the physical matter we know, in order to create worlds for future beings like us...to test and try them, and to give them the chance to become perfect through their decisions.

I understand that many of you might be saying "man, this guy is crazy", but I can tell you this much: I have had experiences, not lectures or theological B.S. that lead me to not only believe, but to have knowledge of these things.  I guess I can put it this way, if you believe that what people belief is their reality, then I like my reality.  I think you get what you want out of life/existence.  

I love to think about the eternities.  I know we live forever.  I have lived outside my body, and I have had glimpses of what it's going to be like when I leave this corruptible body for the last time and move on.  We all move on, we just have to ask ourselves why and to where.

I don't know you all, but I love you all.  We are all one, yet we are all individuals...and will be forever, that's part of the way it is.  There are certain laws of existence that even God didn't make up, but I believe He governs and organizes perfectly because He is perfect.  All human beings, regardless of sex and creed and race are His children and can become like Him.

Thank you for respecting my beliefs.
-Daniel

-------------------------------------------
*The Gods are Eloheim
J.S. circa 1830
"The word comes from Ancient Hebrew, and needs some explanation.
"Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven.
You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary,  if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators,
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods.
It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." I want to show a little learning as well as other fools
The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aashamayeen vehau auraits"     "The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image."
I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right.
I came here to investigate these things precisely "


----------------------------------------------------


fides quaerens intellectum

Hi all

Thanks James for wording that a little more tactfully & diplomatically than I. What you wrote is closer to what I was thinking, but somehow I sounded (to me) a little too aggressive, which was not my intention.

PW, I'm sorry, you are right, this IS only chat . Like James, I would much prefer to see YOUR own opinion on a particular matter. I know that sometimes it's impractical to paraphrase a book excerpt & it's easier to just post it & let people read.

I don't enjoy having a go at people I like, so thanks PW for not taking it badly. Choosing to skip the thread entirely is what I should have done, like you said, but unfortunately, it's not in my nature. "We look to Buddha" would have drawn the same reaction, I can't help myself.

Good journeys all

Mobius

Mobius-
You're a great person and I always enjoy your thoughts.  It's great that people with different ideas and beliefs can interact through technology and I think it provides the possibility to learn and grow.  Although we may differ in some big ways, I think we do agree on many things...


fides quaerens intellectum

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior:

I understand that many of you might be saying "man, this guy is crazy", but I can tell you this much: I have had experiences, not lectures or theological B.S. that lead me to not only believe, but to have knowledge of these things.  I guess I can put it this way, if you believe that what people belief is their reality, then I like my reality.  I think you get what you want out of life/existence.  

I love to think about the eternities.  I know we live forever.  I have lived outside my body, and I have had glimpses of what it's going to be like when I leave this corruptible body for the last time and move on.  We all move on, we just have to ask ourselves why and to where.

---

Daniel,

This tells me more about who you are and what you believe than the whole of your introductory posting on this topic.

This is GREAT!!!

This is what it's all about!

James.

Thank you.  I really mean that.  In the future I will make it a point to, when I paste things into posts, give my personal ideas about it.


fides quaerens intellectum

First of all, I have to say that this kind of discussion facinates me, and I love the fact that I can come here to find it. Being still young as I am, it's difficult to start these kind of things among my friends, seeing as death, God, and the afterlife are not common topics. I wonder some times why topics such as these cause such heated duscussions. Even here, where they are thankfully civilized and people do not resort to name calling, conversations on these topics are very active. My position on these things is difficult at best. I am not religious, but I do consider myself a spiritual person. I grew up mormon, and tried wiccan for a short while. I suppose my ultimate question is what people think is the "trunk", to refer to blossom's post. What drives us to find God, or Bhudda, or the Goddess, or something higher? Why do we have such a need to connect to something greater than ourselves? I don't know exactly what I'm trying to ask, but this is a start. I don't know if I should start another thread, but the people that have been talking on this one seem the kind of people who could form some sort of answer. Thank you.

MEOW

Hi Cylentpanthur

I think all of us in here have that trouble of not being able to seriously discuss this issue of death, religion & the existence of God/s. Either we are all half smart for coming here & asking questions or participating in discussions, or we are a bunch of odd balls for daring to acknowledge that one day we will DEFINATELY die & wanting to know more than that, I prefer to think of option one.

IMO, therein lies the question that has spawned a multitude of religions, cults & cultures & even this site. If we definately die, well, what are we exactly? What were we before we are now? If there is nothing after our physical form ceases to be, why has there been so many reports of ghosts, apparitions, visions, voices & a mind continueing to exist after death for as long as written records go back?

Something has obviously existed for as long as human memory exists to question this or to believe there is more to us than these physical bodies we are in, as we know religions & worship of the cosmos etc has existed for as long as intelligent man has. If absolutely nothing had happened after each person had died through the centuries & no visions or phenomena occured, we would not have the many different bibles & religions we have today.

So how did all these various cultures operating independantly of each other, all come up with similar themes of a soul & life after death & various Gods?

I grew up in a christian/catholic family & went to catholic schools most of my school years. I saw the hypocracies & double standards of the system & realised that either there isn't a God, as his/her/it's laws are fairly easy to break, or that these people & I were there to uphold an image of how I/we/they wanted others to see me/us as. Regardless of how I/ we/they behaved when out of view of our religous peers.

After leaving religion behind, I decided to read as many different bibles from as many different religions as I could. After wading my way through multiple religions, I discovered that they all said very much the same things about interacting peacefully with other people & getting along. They just pointed out however, that it is because of THEIR prophet, savouir, saint, God etc. that this is so or you will be better off acknowledging THIS God.

I'm not against religions, I just think all the good things you are supposed to do & say should be done/ said to those closest to you first & prove that you are living this way of life or having this belief. Then you can go out & show/tell people how good you are, & it will be the truth & not an image for the sake of being considered a peaceful or good person, when in reality, you are using that image as a deceptive front, to hide from others your true nature.

With the advent of the internet & the absence of information destroying wars, the amount of information & the ease of access has meant more & more people are chasing up the sources of their various religions they are part of, & most don't like what they find.

People are starting to look for the answers without the religous speils attached, & so we find ourselves on sites like this one. A melting pot for independant ideas & theories, not just one. Regardless of all of our backgrounds, beliefs & religions, we all have this site in common, I think that's great.

Good journeys all

Mobius

Just on a side note I feel the need to spit this out.

  Being a Libra I almost always see all sides of an argument.  And for the most part I see an argument growing here, although so far aside from 2 comments, has atleast been gentlemanly (sp?).  I am not a Christian, I don't know what catagory I fall into, should one feel the need to catagorize.  And yes honestly I get annoyed when I hear too much religious rambling wether its on tv, the radio, or the internet.  And some times I like to start up with what I lable "fanatics", people all into any religion they know very little about.
  But PeacefulWarrior is not one of these people.  Yes he is deeply involved in his religion but he knows a considerable amount about it, or at least it seems that way to me.  I also do not think that this topic was created to argue the existance of god, or the amount you read about the topic, but rather posted for the benifite of other like minded individuals.  So why can it not be left at that.

  "There is a wonderful thing about reading, listening, or watching anything.  If you don't like it you can always stop."

David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
http://www.prepaidliving.com/vip/David127385

To be honest, I really enjoy these kinds of discussions and love the novelty of being able to actually communicate with people of often wildly differing religious beliefs in an intelligent and informed way. Though there is the other side of it, where the moment someone crosses the line (as I think about it) and starts trying to preach to me, then I just switch off. No matter who or what it is, I just switch off to the point where the person in question would get more response talking to a brick wall. But Dan's not like that. In my opinion he makes a valued contribution to this BBS and long may he do so.

Yours,
Frank

Sometimes the objectivity, open-mindedness, intelligence and general "goodness" of the members of this site can be, uh.... shocking.  You must admit that I took a risk with this post.  I have been around here a while and I have associated myself with non-religous but spiritually aware people for many years, therefore I fully understand what kind of commotion a post like this CAN make...but I also understand that if someone is truly tolerant, intelligent and open then they will not only allow but appreciate the contributions of ever poster.

Some may label me as a "Christian-mystic" or might even just write me off as someone who has discovered that there's more to reality than dogmatic religous beliefs but just can't let go of all of it.  I don't really consider myself to belong to either of these categories....although I wouldn't be offended if someone were to call me a Christian-mystic because in many senses that fits me.  What I really want to be called, besides a desciple of Christ, is a TRUTH SEEKER.

I want to thank those individuals in here, namely Frank and Cainam, for their kind and objective comments.   I know these two guys most definetly don't consider themselves to be religous, but they are two of the most spiritually minded people I have ever had the opportunity to exchange ideas with and I know they (like almost everyone else here) are trudging up the path of truth and enlightenment (<--is that a word?)
-------------------------------------------------
Ok- if you are sick of this thread, you can stop reading here, because I am about to dive back in....

First of all, I cannot impress upon anyone how incredibly frustrating it is to be a "religous" person who actually despises the word "religous" for a myriad of reasons.  It really frustrates me when I do something selfless or kind and a co-worker or peer says, "Oh, I get it...you did that because you are "religous"..."  I want to shout at them and say, "NO!  I did it because it was the RIGHT thing to do."  Religion?  What does that mean anyway.  Catholic?  Mormon?  Astral Projector?  What?!!!  None of that means much to me.  What means something is TRUTH.  I believe in TRUTH.  I believe that there are many dimensions, many perspectives, etc.  but there is an OBJECTIVE REALITY...and the best way to find it is to find yourSELF and to know the NATURE of GOD.  

We are all at different points in our progression...."religion", "belief systems" are mostly social institutions that have some underlying metaphysical truth(s) to them.  Unfortunately most people, especially leaders, use them as vehicles of control, deception, etc.  That's why it's so hard to be religous, especially Christian, because you turn on the TV and see Christianity being used as a vehicle of capitalism...or war.  




fides quaerens intellectum

The following info is taken from the website www.whyprophets.com,
a site created by an LDS individual and some of his friends.  I am posting this because I think most of this is, frankly, the truth:

"Warning!
This page is very basic. It aims at finding a common point of agreement by avoiding religious terminology. It is abstract and generalized. Please do not think that Mormons normally speak this way! I can already foresee emails saying "this proves that Mormons worship a race of sci-fi space aliens!" No. This is simply abstract speculation, based on current ideas of reality. This is not official LDS doctrine. It is not based on revelation. It is simply my own understanding. I take responsibility for any errors.

There is Always Something Greater:
There are few (if any) limits to scale in this universe. Whatever you think of there is always something smaller, or bigger, or stronger, or weaker, or nearer, or further. Whenever someone says "this is all there is," it is a safe bet that they will ultimately be proven wrong. So, it is probably arrogant foolishness to assume that the humans we see are the most intelligent and powerful beings in the universe or beyond. The numbers in cosmology and metaphysics are mind-boggling. If there is one superior race, then given all the billions of planets in each of the endless galaxies, in endless history and infinite possible universes, there must be vast numbers of such races.


There must be vastly superior beings:
So, it is reasonable to assume that there are more intelligent beings than us somewhere. How much more intelligent? Well, just look at the present acceleration of progress in our technology. If a task is sufficiently important, how long does it take to find a solution? A year? A hundred years? A thousand? One obvious task is "overcoming death." Like time travel, if only a single intelligent race solves this one, the potential for accelerated development is fantastic. Another obvious task is "increasing intelligence." Somewhere in the infinite possibilities of reality, this has almost certainly happened. If we see "the big bang" as the boundary of time and space, then another obvious task is to somehow overcome that as well.


Can a superior being progress?
A suspicious reader may be saying "this is approaching blasphemy – he is going to say that God is an evolved and evolving (i.e. limited) being." No. I am not. I am simply saying at this stage that there must be vastly superior beings. No more, no less. But there is the question of "What do you do if you can do anything?" Some people might take this as an argument for pessimism – that life must be ultimately pointless. But that is not a rational conclusion. Just as (from our perspective) there is always some greater intelligence, so there is always some greater purpose. Supreme beings would have their own view on what was needed.


What is meant by progress?
Does progress in this context mean "getting better" or "doing more things"? The idea of a superior being "getting better" is plainly false (see the next point). But the idea of progress as "achieving more and more things" is unavoidable. Intelligence, by its definition, means making things better. And this is probably the clue. A supreme being cannot make himself or herself better. But they can make inferior beings better.


They Are Infinite and Eternal:
Do vastly superior and deathless equate to infinite and eternal? Yes:


To all intents and purposes, how could we tell the difference? For us to worry over a vastly superior being is illogical – our mental concepts just cannot cope. Whenever you double your intelligence, you radically change how you see things. Imagine doubling your intelligence a thousand times. For you or I to judge such a being is foolish in the extreme.
The very idea of limited intelligence is probably a bi-product of our own limited intelligence. This is a big topic, so I will just leave it at that.
If someone's development is accelerating continually, it is absurd to speak of them in terms of limitations. Compare intelligence to velocity. Once you approach the velocity of light, all the normal assumptions either break down or become irrelevant. To say a vastly superior being could make a mistake is like saying that someone traveling at the speed of light might be overtaken by someone else. They won't.


What is Intelligence?
Up to now, I have not defined intelligence. I will now do so. (Note to LDS readers: I mean "intelligence" as an attribute of living things, not as life itself.) Intelligence means the efficient use of resources where a) "efficient use" means resources can be used for more – to go further, create more, obey our will more closely, or whatever and b) "resources" mean pretty much anything that can be used – objects, knowledge, or whatever. If two people have the same information, the more intelligent one makes better use of it. So, for example, where you or I see random chaos, a more intelligent being sees a pattern and can predict its future behaviour. Where you or I can make flour and eggs and sugar into a nice cake, a more intelligent person can make the most delicious thing you have ever imagined, or use it to attract and develop a wild bird colony, or treat it chemically to create a life saving drug, or rocket fuel, or whatever.


One Supreme Being or Many?
At this point we should maybe stop using the plural. The most intelligent beings will of course work together in perfect harmony (because conflict is inefficient). Also, an intelligent being will not have two leaders where one will do (because duplication is inefficient). So, from our point of view, we need only refer to one supreme being. N.B. Those brought up in a market economy may answer that conflict and duplication are essential to competition, and competition is essential to progress. But a little thought will show that competition is only a useful strategy where knowledge (and hence choices, desires, etc.) is limited. This is another big topic, so I will leave it for now.


A White Male Supreme Being?:
This level of detail is irrelevant to the big issues, and cannot be predicted purely from logic. If a supreme being chooses to reveal his or her presence as male, female, white, black, or blue with three heads, that does not change their nature as supreme. It is tempting to say that "a supreme being is beyond such things, even if they choose to reveal themselves as human that does not mean they really are." But that position is not logical. There is no rational reason for believing that an abstract force is somehow superior to a being with a fixed form. If a supreme being chooses to reveal himselves as a certain form, then by definition that is the intelligent thing to believe. If a supreme being does not reveal such details, that is the end of the matter.


The Supreme Being Has a Plan For Us:
We cannot say exactly what a vastly superior being would do, because we do not see things as they do. But we can draw some general conclusions.


First, destroying is far easier than creating (and has less potential), so it is fair to assume that superior beings would tend to create rather than destroy.
Second, manipulating lifeless forces is no big deal. To achieve even more (e.g. to be more intelligent) they must work with other intelligent beings.
Third, if being intelligent is itself intelligent, then so is making others become more intelligent.


So, supreme beings probably create, they deal with other intelligent beings, and they help these others to become more intelligent. But are they interested in us? Of course. By definition, an intelligent being does not waste resources. Humans have potential and are therefore a resource.


The Supreme Being Loves Us:
Given that a supreme being could choose to do anything, they must enjoy what they do. And they choose to help us to become intelligent like them. Think about that. They are happy. They want us to be happy. They are very interested in us. Making us happy makes them happy. Sounds like a good definition of love.


The Logic of a Saviour
See also – Reasons for the Atonement of Christ

We Are Subject to Error and Death:
This is self evident. We all die. We all do things that are destructive and do not achieve good things. Given our limited intelligence, there is not much we can do about this. Errors are particularly problematic. Errors are not just abstract. Wrong decisions, by definition, have bad results. Who picks up the pieces?

How Can a Supreme Being Communicate With Us?
It is all very well recognizing there is a supreme being, but how does such a being communicate? If they just appeared in a flash of light, there would be no development of intelligence. There is no intellectual stretching when we just do what is blindingly obvious (e.g. whatever the supreme being says). Even if they left us with freedom, we would likely be too scared to take any chances. So, does the supreme being leave intellectual clues? Maybe, but that's not the whole story. Our intelligence is currently limited, so it is quite likely that we would make a mess of this. Any intellectual test has a threshold that some well-meaning mortals will not pass. The only practical way to teach us is to send another human who does it right. The intelligent ones will recognize this to some extent (or at least have the tolerance not to condemn this teacher for some illogical reasoning).

Appendix: Classical Proofs of the Existence of God
Classical arguments for the existence of God do more harm than good. First, they are so weak that they just provide ammunition for atheists. Second, they avoid the only real source of proof – direct revelation. In contrast, the approach outlined on this page has the following advantages over the classical arguments:

This makes sense, and they do not.
It leads directly to personal revelation (pray and find out for yourself), the only way to really know for sure.
This is based on common observations, not abstract tricks. Although this proof is only as strong as those assumptions, the alternative is to talk of theoretically perfect and infinite concepts. I see no evidence that any of us really understands the concepts of "perfect" or "infinite," hence the errors in previous "proofs." In contrast, if we are certain of anything, we are certain that, for example, there is always something bigger.
Augustine's Attempt at a Logical Proof

Eternal truths (e.g. geometry) can only be understood by illumination from God. Therefore there is a God:
Unfortunately, it is possible to arrive at some eternal truths (e.g. that 1 + 1 = 2) without any apparent inspiration, but simply by counting. Now I personally believe that inspiration (of some kind) is essential, but I do not see that Augustine has demonstrated that. I doubt that it could be demonstrated in a simple yet also watertight fashion.

Anselm's Attempt at a Logical Proof

There must be an absolute, final, greatest, self-existent thing:
This depends on two basic premises: (1) a person can conceive of something perfect, and (2) physical is more perfect than conceptual. Perhaps both are true but I think there is plenty of room for doubt.

Aquinas' Attempts at a Logical Proof

There has to be a prime mover – an ultimate cause:
Even if this could be logically demonstrated, it does not do much good, as it pushes God so far back in time that he becomes irrelevant.

The universe is so well organized that it must have had a creator:
This has some appeal, but was never a very good proof. If we compare the universe to an animal (which is also well designed), we can imagine that another universe could have given birth to it, and so the original creator could be an exceedingly long way away.

Scotus' Attempt at a Logical Proof

He suggested a complex variation on the "prime mover" idea, placing secondary causes between us and God:
But the more stages there are to a proof, the more likely that one of them is mistaken, and the less useful it is to the ordinary person. Scotus' proof (though I have not studied it in depth) seems too similar to those that have gone before.

Descartes' Attempts at a Logical Proof

We can conceive of perfect being, and we must have got the idea from somewhere:
I am not convinced of the premise. Do we really conceive of a perfect being? Or just a being who appears perfect to us? A reliance on logical proofs can prove only one thing: that these great theologians did not have much confidence in God's ability to reveal himself directly. They are evidence that the church of their day was in apostasy, and did not have the gifts of the spirit.

The Bottom Line
The gospel of Jesus Christ is rational. Indeed, when looked at logically, it becomes inevitable."

A Supreme Human Example:
What would this ideal teacher do? The only practical way to show that death can be overcome is to do it. The only practical way to show that perfection is possible is to be perfect. It is no good sending a teacher who is just "pretty good." They have to be perfect. Otherwise, we may see the good, and (in our ignorance) copy their faults.


Hope and Evidence:
Being intelligent means making the best use of what we have (see above). In other words, we do not wait until things are handed to us – we are hungry for truth. This means taking chances, but not too many chances. It means balancing the evidence (which we may misunderstand) with our hopes that it means what we think (which hopes may be unfounded). Intelligence means balancing hope and evidence. That (in my opinion) is the most useful definition of faith.


fides quaerens intellectum

PeacefulWarrior

Your viewpoint is interesting, and i think you are entitled to it. Props to you who can demostrate how diverse spirituality really is. And that my friend is the basic crux of organized religion for me. People always have different viewpoints/beliefs and the fact that organized religion shuns this, and tells the masses how to react or deal with certain issues pretty much cancels out why humanity is such a unique animal.
You also give a great example for the argument of physical versus spiritual. I have an idea that the basic unit that fuels all of our disscussions here in the forum is the inherant energy that is in our bodies. This energy can be manipulated/transfered just as any energy we find in the natural world. Of course, there are some people who have a "god-given" (pun intended :) talent for this, but i believe with practice and hard work (as with anything) everyone can achieve some postitive results from it. Its not a belief, its not miracle, its not being blessed, its nature taking its course. But we are so over exposed to religion/media that some people are forced to think that this, the most natural of processes, has negative implications. Or they are so caught up with material lifestyles, some dont recognize what they are truly capable of. I think we could all seriously benefit from Astral Dynamics in ways that can hardly be counted. From a simple stimulating technique to refresh yourself from that long day at work, all the way up to concious projection and healing. If we could put the spirituality issue aside for a second and look at AD from a scientifical standpoint. The energy is there in your body, and energy cannot be dissapated. All its waiting for is you to be its guide.
(im stopping here because i could go on about how religion is only there to ease peoples fear of dying, but then nobody would read my post cuz its too long /hinthint :)

Hi all

This discussion would have fit in nicely in Cainams "Do you believe in God/creator?"

Cainam & Frank, I don't think anyone was saying that we don't want to hear from PW at all. Just that we would prefer to hear an individual contemporary interpretation or view on a subject & not a copy & paste of religous text which means little to a lot of us.

I've seen most of these philosophers ideas on the big questions in life & while I find myself agreeing to nearly all those logical proofs, it still doesn't change anything. Nothing has been solved by those guys paraphrasing each other over the centuries. In the year 2002 we are still asking the same questions as thousands of years ago & nothing has come of it, just speculation.

Quote
The Bottom Line
The gospel of Jesus Christ is rational. Indeed, when looked at logically, it becomes inevitable."

Didn't know there was a gospel of Jesus, maybe they should have included that one in the bible?hehe

It is obvious that most of us in here DO believe there is a higher something & that these things we are using to walk, talk & write with are just temporary vehicles & that the real us, the non physical double or the soul if you will, goes on. It's just that our interpretations on who is at the end of the line are different.

PW, this is a free & open forum & I definately respect your right to say & believe whatever you wish, your thoughts are most appreciated.

Good journeys all

Mobius

Mobius, yes, it means little to me, overall, at first. But I still do at least try and understand it and I know you do to. Though I do realise that where such viewpoints come across like the person involved is kinda stuffing it down your throat does obviously make both you (and I) want to disregard the thing entirely.

With me, there are names on here that have come together and made some great contributions: that is IN SPITE of the commonly held belief that one religion should fight another.... or that viewpoint A should be totally against viewpoint B, etc.

Personally, I blame Mr Bruce: he created a website (oh, and Adrian as well so he's jointly to blame) where all manner of persons could come together and chat on an equal footing. Now that shouldn't be allowed... if human history is anything to go by we should have long since been threatening to kill each other by now. :)

Yours,
Frank

P.W,
I like the fact that you are not afraid to remove yourself from the standard brands that most religions wish to bestow on us. Disciple of Christ & truth seeker sounds good. It means you are comitted to following the ways of a person who, leaving aside possible arguments of wether he was the son of God or not, was basically very intelligent, wise, kind and loving, and gave us a way of life that could not fail to make us better people. Truth seeker means your willing to think about the information your being fed and not just follow blindly. I would agree that your not religious.

I would not call myself a christian any more as my spiritual direction has since changed, however when I would have called myself a christian, I always stated that I was not religious. It might just be an interpretation, but  I've always felt that being a diciple of christ and being religious are two completely different, if not diametrically opposed things. I suppose this goes along with what kmd242 was saying about organised religions.

Since you can be religious about anything from gambling to making sure that your favourite pet ant is kept well groomed, I've always considered that "religious" usually equates to "doing without thinking."

In years past, before the freedom of information and literacy that is available now, more often than not it was the churches, the organised religions  that controlled the distribution of information. Their leaders jealously garded their sizeable empires by making sure that people followed without question.

Now we can question as we are being independently informed. This site is a classic example of what would not have been allowed to exist under such church states. Indeed were we all living in China now we'd still have a big problem with it.

So if you're actually someone who thinks about what you believe in, and have found its merits based upon what you feel is true, then you are far from being religious. Many true followers of Christ, Allah, Buddah, Krishna, Bahá u lláh, Gaia, the Great Prophet Zarquon, whoever, are generally not the slightest bit religious. They just live according to their belief, and they're generally far more open minded towards people with other spiritual views than those who are religious.

"God protect us from religion"
- David Eddings, Redemption of Althalus.

James.

quote:

---

Didn't know there was a gospel of Jesus, maybe they should have included that one in the bible?hehe

---

Gospel just means "good news"; the gospels in the bible are the Gospel {of Jesus} according to John or Mark or whoever.  They're all the Gospel of Jesus.

That's right Jacara....most people don't know that.

fides quaerens intellectum

For those of you willing to sacrifice a few minutes of your time, the following gives a fairly encompassing view of LDS belief with a more philisophical approach.  My interjections are in parentheses( )  If you decide not to read this, at least scroll down to the piece I have indicated in red.

Philosophy: Quotes

Brady, F. Neil. "Ethics." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
The scriptures affirm that questions of the good and the right are intertwined with questions of the holy and with the primal Jewish-Christian imperative "Be ye holy for I am holy." (1 Pet. 1:16; cf. Lev. 11:44) Daily tensions between the sacred and the secular are part of the ethical dilemma, and Latter-day Saints seek help from the scriptures and classical sources.

Philosophers often distinguish two approaches to ethics: teleology and deontology. The teleological approach appraises the morality of an act by its relation to an end or purpose, while the deontological approach understands morality primarily in terms of duty or response to law. In Christian ethics, these views have proved difficult to reconcile. For Latter-day Saints, however, both obedience to divine imperatives and pursuit of ultimate happiness are correlative elements in the maturation of human beings. The conflict between duty and desire is overcome as one grows closer to God through faith and service and finds joy in upholding divine counsels and commandments.   (So it's not about following blindly or being contrained by rules, it's about true happiness...and it's a an objective truth that by following rules, by putting forth effort, we obtain more freedom and eventually more happiness.  This is one of the toughest thing to teach, because it can't be taught!  One must begin to DO certain things before he or she understands and internalizes it.)

Ethicists likewise contrast performance and motive in the religious life. Rabbinical tradition, for example, emphasizes the continuous study and scrupulous observance of Torah, while Reformation Protestantism stresses motive. Again, Latter-day Saints reject this perennial division; both are crucial in the religious life. "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16). Grace transforms men toward a Christlike nature. But purity of heart is manifest in scripture study and vigorous service; thus, mastery of law and inner change go hand in hand as components of discipleship and joyful living.  (I take this as: study all you want, but without actually going out and DOING and LIVING, it will profiteth you nothing.  Behind this you must also have a pure heart, a true desire to love and help...)

Carter, K. Codell. "Epistemology." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
The Western philosophical tradition, like Western thought generally, emphasizes knowledge in the sense of knowing facts. But this emphasis may not be appropriate, especially from a gospel perspective. Some scriptures teach that other kinds of knowledge may be more important. Thus, Jesus prays, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)  This is knowledge by acquaintance more than "knowledge about." (cf. JST Matt. 7:32-33)  There are also indications that factual knowledge alone is not sufficient for salvation: "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only." (James 1:22)  At the request of President Spencer W. Kimball, a prophet, the words in a LDS children's hymn were changed from "Teach me all that I must know" to "Teach me all that I must do," because it is not enough just to know; one must do the will of the Lord.

A related gospel theme is that knowing comes from doing. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:17)  The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, "We cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received." (TPJS, p. 256)

In formal philosophy, "knowing," in the sense of knowing facts, is often defined to mean true belief together with good reasons. In other words, a person knows some statement X if and only if that person believes X, and if X is true, and if the person has good reasons for believing X. The European-American philosophical tradition recognizes two kinds of reasons that support the claim to know: rational argument and empirical evidence. Within the Church these are tacitly accepted as sources of knowledge, sometimes even of religious knowledge. For example, after reviewing the traditional arguments for the existence of God, James E. Talmage observed that some were "at least strongly corroborative" of God's existence. (AF, p. 29)

However, there is a continuing tradition, based on the scriptures and reinforced by modern Church leaders, that specifically religious knowledge requires a different and distinctively spiritual source. "We believe that no man can know that Jesus is the Christ, but by the Holy Ghost. We believe in [the gift of the Holy Ghost] in all its fulness, and power, and greatness, and glory." (TPJS, p. 243; D&C 76:114-16)  It is widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that gospel knowledge must ultimately be obtained by spiritual rather than exclusively rational or empirical means. (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:3)  Thus, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is no clear counterpart to the Roman Catholic tradition of natural theology.   (This is the greatest thing about the truth....everyone must come to it on their own.  In other words "Never take my word for it".  That's why the "preachy" attitude is so ineffective, belitting and ignorant.  I know that if I really want someone to see what I see, then I must simply point out the right way and they must go through it.  For example, the first time you obtain "astral sight", it is breathtaking, shocking, revealing, etc.  I can explain it to someone all day and night and they still will NEVER really know what it's like until they experience it for themselves.  This is precisely the reason I never discount or write off what someone has to say unless I either have experienced it[ or never want to (ie. murder or something evil like that. /red]

One of the most suggestive and frequently cited scriptures in LDS teaching makes the point: "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moro. 10:4-5)  This scripture is usually taken to apply to all knowledge. This suggests that both rational argument and empirical evidence, the two traditional approaches to knowledge, can be either supplanted by or encompassed within spiritual knowledge. Of course, the scripture does not say that knowledge comes only by the Holy Ghost. Yet, within the Church, it is often held that what might be thought of as secular learning, for example, modern scientific knowledge, is directly associated with the restoration of the gospel and is rooted in divine inspiration throughout the world.   (In other words, all knowledge comes from the SOURCE, the ETERNAL NOW...we just get it trickled down through the dimensional levels because, for whatever reason, it's important for us as indivudals or as a whole for our spiritual progress.)

Hancock, Ralph C. "Reason and Revelation." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).

LDS teaching encourages a distinct openness to the intrinsic as well as instrumental goodness of the life of the mind, an openness founded on the continuity between the human and divine realms. The full exercise of human reason under the direction of revelation holds a high place among the virtuous and praiseworthy ends to be sought by the indivudal (A of F 13), for the scripture promises that "whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection," and the more "knowledge and intelligence" one gains through "diligence and obedience," the greater "the advantage in the world to come." (D&C 130:18-19)  This emphasis on intellectual development in human progress toward godhood accords with the fundamental doctrine that is the official motto of Brigham Young University--namely, that "the glory of God is intelligence." (D&C 93:36)  

Equated with "light and truth," such intelligence by nature "forsake that evil one." (D&C 93:37) It cannot be simply identified with conventional measures of "intelligence" or with the Greek philosophic idea of a pure, immaterial, and self-directed intelligence, a concept that was very influential in medieval theology. For Latter-day Saints, the attainment of intelligence must be integrated with the labor of shaping the material world and binding together families and generations, for "the elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy." (D&C 93:33)  To the doctrine that "the glory of God is intelligence," one must add God's statement to Moses that "this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you who care (is there anyone?) I will add some personal comments to everything below later )
Rasmussen, Dennis. "Metaphysics." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
TENTATIVENESS. LDS metaphysics stands apart, because the Church has not developed a traditional metaphysical theology and does not aspire to one. It has not been much influenced by philosophical thinking. LDS faith springs from two sources, scripture and ongoing religious experience. The absence of any systematic metaphysics of the Church follows from the belief that scripture, as the record of divine revelation, may be supplemented by new revelation at any time. A metaphysical system, to be true, must be all-inclusive. But faith in continuing revelation precludes the certainty that such a system exists. Thus, LDS metaphysics remains incomplete, tentative, and unsystematic, subject to revision in the light of things yet to be revealed by God. This tentativeness about metaphysical ideas has saved the Church from the crises that can arise when a religion's beliefs are tied to philosophical ideas which are later abandoned or discredited. The Church's lack of a systematic metaphysical theology has prompted some students of its doctrines who are used to such theology to assert that it has no theology at all, but it would be more accurate to say that its metaphysics and theology are not systematically formulated.

MATTER AND SPIRIT. In the absence of a metaphysical system, the LDS faith still displays some characteristic metaphysical ideas. Latter-day Saints regard matter as a fundamental principle of reality and as the primary basis for distinguishing particular beings. The import of this view reveals itself most strikingly in the doctrine concerning the material embodiment of God: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also." (D&C 130:22)  This is not to be understood crassly; the matter of exalted bodies is purified, transfigured, and glorified. LDS teachings draw no ultimate contrast between spirit and matter. Indeed, "all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure." (D&C 131:7)  This position avoids traditional difficulties in explaining the interaction of spirit and body.

The reality of matter implies the reality of space and time. Scripture speaks of the place where God dwells and of "the reckoning of the Lord's time." (Abr. 3:9)  So God himself exists within a spatial and temporal environment. In accepting space, time, and matter as constitutive of reality, Latter-day Saints take the everyday world of human experience as a fairly reliable guide to the nature of things. But this acceptance is no dogma, and their belief remains open to the possibility that these three ideas, as presently understood, may be auxiliaries to more fundamental ideas not yet known.

PLURALISM. LDS thought clearly emphasizes the importance of the fundamental plurality of the world, with its continuing novelties, changes, conflicts, and agreements: "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things." (2 Ne. 2:11)  The world is not static but dynamic, not completed but still unfolding. This unfinished and future-oriented aspect of things provides the basis for growth and improvement. A monistic world or universe in which all differences are finally absorbed in a higher unity is viewed as impossible. The LDS Church has been less inclined than some other religions to regard the world of common experience as an inferior order of that which must be distinguished from a higher and altogether different realm. Heaven itself is regarded as offering the hope of endless progression rather than the ease of final satisfaction.

NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL. Latter-day Saints see a continuity between the traditional categories of natural and supernatural. They do not deny the distinction, but view it as one of degree, not of kind. God's creative act, for example, is not, as traditionally conceived, a creation ex nihilo, but an act of organizing material that already exists. (Abr. 3:24)  And creation is not a single, unique event, but an ongoing process that continues through the course of time: "And as one earth shall pass away . . . so shall another come." (Moses 1:38)  God acts upon matter within the context of space and time. In comparison with human attributes, God's attributes are supreme and perfect. But the difference between God and mankind remains one of degree. God seeks to provide the guidance and the necessary help for human beings to overcome the differences and become like him. The injunction to be perfect "even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48) is taken to mean that mankind may indeed become like God by faithfully following his commandments. The principles or laws of goodness that underlie these commandments have their own abiding reality. God exemplifies them but does not arbitrarily create them.

FREEDOM AND PERFECTIBILITY. Nothing is more central to LDS metaphysics than the principle of freedom. The weaknesses of humanity that lead to error and sin are acknowledged. But the claim that human nature is totally depraved is denied. The LDS Church affirms that ideally "men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil" and that "men are free according to the flesh, . . . free to choose liberty and eternal life . . . or to choose captivity and death." (2 Ne. 2:5, 27)  Human experience has as its final goal the development of virtue and holiness in a world that is not totally the product of God's will. Reality itself poses the challenge to overcome obstacles and achieve greater good. Everyone's life is a response to this challenge.

Riddle, Chauncey C. "Philosophy." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
Latter-day scriptures do not present a philosophical system, but they do contain answers to many classic philosophical issues. These scriptures preclude ex nihilo creation, idealism (immaterialism), a chance theory of causation, and absolute determinism. They affirm the eternality and agency of the individual person, the necessary existence of evil apart from God, a nonrelativistic good (righteousness), and the doctrine that all mortals are the offspring and heirs of God. God is affirmed as a perfected physical being who governs all things in pure love and who continues to communicate with his children on earth by personal revelation.

Observers of the LDS position have ascribed philosophical labels and tendencies to it, but that position usually will not fit neatly into the stock answers. It is empirical, yet rational; pragmatic, yet idealistic; oriented toward eternity, yet emphasizing the importance of the here and now. Affinities are found with the Cartesian certainty of personal existence, the positivist insistence on sensory evidence, the Enlightenment emphasis on elimination of paradox, and the postmodern respect for the "other." The ultimate standard for all being, truth, and good is Christ himself.

Warner, C. Terry. "Truth." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
The LDS conception of truth does not fit any of the categories in which it has been discussed in the Western philosophical tradition. For Latter-day Saints, truth is found in living the type of life exemplified by Jesus Christ.

In the Western philosophical tradition, truth is the characteristic or quality of an idea or statement that justifies belief in it. What this characteristic might be has been the subject of long-standing philosophical debate; some have said it is the correspondence with reality that true statements possess; some, their "tie-in" or coherence with other statements; some, their consequences or practical usefulness. So devastating have been the attacks upon each of these theories that in recent times many philosophers have abandoned altogether the traditional assumption that a firm or absolute kind of truth is possible. These philosophers say that because our knowledge of the world is heavily conditioned by the peculiarities of the particular language in which it is expressed, it is an interpretation at best; we have no basis for claiming we can ever know "how things really are," they argue, and therefore, whatever truth exists is relative to the speaker's language, culture, and situation. Absolute truth, thought of as a property of ideas or statements, is a concept that has fallen on hard times.

Commonly it is supposed that for Latter-day Saints truth is absolute in a way that makes it vulnerable to the relativist's arguments. But for Latter-day Saints, as their scriptures and everyday discourse reveal, truth is not primarily a matter of the correctness of ideas or statements, and consequently their view is not to be found among the traditional alternatives or any combination of them. Though they do speak of the truth of statements, they most often use the word "truth" to signify an entire way of life--specifically, the way of life exemplified, prescribed, and guided by Jesus Christ.

. . .
Because Christ perfectly embodies the virtue of being true and faithful (in his case, to the life his Father required of him), there is a crucial sense in which he himself is the truth. "I am the way," he said, "the truth, and the life." (John 14:6)  He "received a fulness of truth." (D&C 93:26)  His cosmic influence, called "the Light of Christ," is also the light of truth, giving life to everything and enlightening human minds. By means of this light, he is "in all and through all things" (D&C 88:6), a permeating presence. Given this sense of the word "truth," it is not odd, as it otherwise would appear, to say, as does a key doctrinal revelation, that "truth shineth." (D&C 88:6-13)

. . .
For Latter-day Saints, salvation is a matter of growing in truth and particularly in knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith taught that "a man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge" (HC 4:588) and that "it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance." (D&C 131:6)  In context these statements mean that one cannot be saved in ignorance of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints who recognize that truth is not merely a property of language but is central to a life of obedience to the Savior do not interpret these passages to mean that the learned--the scholars and scientists--have a better chance of being saved. Gaining knowledge and becoming more godlike are two aspects of a single process, which helps explain the Latter-day Saint emphasis on education and personal scriptural mastery as well as on righteous living.

Yarn, David H., Jr. "Some Metaphysical Reflections on the Gospel of John." BYU Studies 3, Autumn 1960, pp. 3-10.
As one reads John's Gospel with the metaphysical concepts in mind it is most revealing to see how completely everything is oriented in the Lord. For example, some of the categories one might consider are being, becoming, relation, potency, unity, duality, teleology, change, process, and causation. Let me offer three brief illustrations and some general observations [on "Being," "Relation," and "Duality"].

* Yarn, David H., Jr. "'Wisdom' (Philosophy) in the Holy Bible." BYU Studies 13(1), Autumn 1972, pp. 91-103.
For the student of philosophy, perhaps it is most interating and directly relevant to attempt to determine what constitute the full content of the meaning of the word wisdom from it use in the Bible . . .

Predominantly, wisdom denotes instruction in morals, knowledge of God (specifically Jesus Christ), and righteousness of life. Consistent with this meaning, we are told that wisdom is of greater value than silver or fine gold, more precious than rubies, and that all things that can be desired are not to be compared to it. (Proverbs 3:14-15.) Heavenly (God's) wisdom is distinguished from earthly (man's) wisdom, and men are warned against trusting in their own widsom and knowledge. Finally, the higher wisdom, that which can be known only through the Spirit and power of God, is "peaceable, gentle, easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality (wrangling), and without hypocrisy" (James 3:17-18); and gives happiness, peace, freedom from fear, sleep that is sweet, and is life unto the soul. (pp. 92, 102-103)



fides quaerens intellectum

Gordon B. Hinckley, "We Look to Christ," Ensign, May 2002, 90
....one thing we do know. Like the polar star in the heavens, regardless of what the future holds, there stands the Redeemer of the world, the Son of God, certain and sure as the anchor of our immortal lives. He is the rock of our salvation, our strength, our comfort, the very focus of our faith.

In sunshine and in shadow we look to Him, and He is there to assure and smile upon us.

He is the central focus of our worship. He is the Son of the living God, the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten in the flesh, who left the royal courts on high to be born as a mortal in the most humble of circumstances. Of the loneliness of His living He said, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matt. 8:20). He "went about doing good" (Acts 10:38).

He was a man of miracles. He reached out to those in distress. He healed the sick and raised the dead. Yet for all of the love He brought into the world, He was "despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: ... he was despised," and was esteemed not (Isa. 53:3).

We look upon His matchless life and say with the prophet Isaiah:

"He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. ...

"... He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isa. 53:4-5).

When the great War in Heaven was fought, Lucifer, the son of the morning, came forth with a plan that was rejected. The Father of us all, with love for us, His children, offered a better plan under which we would have freedom to choose the course of our lives. His Firstborn Son, our Elder Brother, was the key to that plan. Man would have his agency, and with that agency would go accountability. Man would walk the ways of the world and sin and stumble. But the Son of God would take upon Himself flesh and offer Himself a sacrifice to atone for the sins of all men. Through unspeakable suffering He would become the great Redeemer, the Savior of all mankind.

With some small understanding of that incomparable gift, that marvelous gift of redemption, we bow in reverent love before Him.

As a Church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. They spoke to him. He spoke with Them. He testified openly, unequivocally, and unabashedly of that great vision. It was a vision of the Almighty and of the Redeemer of the world, glorious beyond our understanding but certain and unequivocating in the knowledge which it brought. It is out of that knowledge, rooted deep in the soil of modern revelation, that we, in the words of Nephi, "talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that [we and] our children may know to what source [we] may look for a remission of [our] sins" (2 Ne. 25:26).

And so, my brothers and sisters, as we bid you good-bye for a season, we repeat our firm and enduring testimony. We do it as individuals with a sure and certain knowledge. As I have said many times before, and as I now say again, I know that God our Eternal Father lives. He is the great God of the universe. He is the Father of our spirits with whom we may speak in prayer.

I know that Jesus Christ is His Only Begotten Son, the Redeemer of the world, who gave His life that we might have eternal life and who rules and reigns with His Father. I know that They are individual beings, separate and distinct one from another and yet alike in form and substance and purpose. I know that it is the work of the Almighty "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet, the great Prophet of this dispensation through whom these truths have come. I know that this Church is the work of God, presided over and directed by Jesus Christ, whose holy name it bears.

Of these things I testify in solemnity as I leave with you, my beloved associates, my love and blessing, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen. God be with you 'til we meet again.



fides quaerens intellectum