conscience

[Clear]

1) Tumbleweed, we have already reached an impasse long ago:

You deny revelation (or did until post #51) based on “lack of data” as you call it.
Davy Crocket and I both believe in revelation based on “accumulated emipical data”.
I was never discomforted by your disbelief. What I wanted to point out is that denial OR confirmation of a principle is better made by basing our opinion on accumulated data, rather than on a “lack of data” (lack of knowledge, lack of data, or ignorance of data). It is that simple.



2) Regarding your complaint that all of your points aren’t answered : Please remember my request from post #33

“ If you can show me how denying (or confirming) without personal evidence is a true principle, then perhaps I could give more credence to your opinions which are based on lack of evidence. Can you do that?

I am still ready to live up to my promise.



3) Your complaints are taking on the quality of unjustified whining.
We’ve spent time and energy in your first premise that one may deny revelation by simply being ignorant of the evidence for authentic revelation.
Then in post #51 you make the cryptic claim “Have I had revelations, yes, many.”
Forgive the suspicion that you might bait with a reader assumption that you are claiming these are authentic revelations from God, but later admit that they were counterfeit and you were mistaken and thus claim “how does one know” (before settling the existence of revelation).



4) You also complained that I have not spelled out the answer to the errors in your logic regarding denying revelation and yet you have already denied it when DavyCrocket gave you the answer in a differing but still simple form.

You claim “Hearsay is unprovable” (which is incorrect). You earlier claimed hearsay is proveable by saying “You Garden, or Red Couch can be proven, or disproven if one was to go so far as to investigate your claim, however a revelation cannot.”

I already told you the answer to this principle many posts ago regarding the fact that PROVING revelation was unnecessary for those having the revelation In post #28, I told you :

A prophet, having revelations for the world knows that he has them. He is not in doubt.
The disciple, having revelations for himself knows that he has them. He is not in doubt.
This revelatory cascade allows any disciple who wants to know if the prophets revelations are true to simply ask for a confirming revelation as proof. Thus, the prophet has no need to prove his revelations to the disciple. The disciple himself may prove it.

I believe the disciple may prove hearsay. You believe he may not.



5) Tumbleweed41 , in speaking to DavyCrooket2003 in Post #46 said

" So Clear describes himself as "Deeply Christian", do you think he believes the revelations of Joseph Smith as you do? He believes God exists, his heart is obviously open to Gods will.

DavyCrocket is correct regarding revelation : it can be proven to one self, you simply deny this point. You are thirsty but do not see the well. You itch, but cannot scratch. There is something else from your past that bothers you which you have not shared. The current issue of Revelation is NOT the problem for you.


You are correct when you say that my “heart is obviously open to God’s will”. I am not a scholar but I have known a few truly great scholars. In college, a Lutheran Scholar (one of the finest scholars and finest persons I’ve ever known) handed me a Book of Mormon and explained that they had received a revelation that the Book was a true testimony of Jesus Christ and they were going to seek baptism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka the Mormon church). The only thing I remembered about the book was it’s promise the scholar showed me regarding revelation as a method of knowing the truth of it’s testimony.

The promise stated : “... when ye shall read these things, ....remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things....”

My Lutheran friend related that they had read the many testimonies of Jesus Christ in the Book, and they had received their own revelation that it was true and were going to act on this new knowledge. It was only the tremendous credibility of this great scholar and the promise that motivated me to overcome my own bias to read the Book.

I admit that the Book of Mormon was the most profound and moving testimony of Jesus Christ I have ever seen in the years before or since. I am positive in the very depths of my heart. I do NOT believe any man or group of men could have produced that sort of testimony of Jesus without direct and guiding revelation. Reading this Book opened up windows of revelation and insight that I’d never experienced before. I have read a greater breadth of texts than anyone I've ever met (Nag hamadi library; the Qumran Libraries; Jasher; the Enochs; much of the Jewish and early christian texts; the Quran and midrashic texts; etc, etc). Nothing has coordinated them and has illuminated them like the principles related by Joseph Smith. Yes, I can say with a surety constructed of many years of confirming revelation, upon confirming revelation, that Joseph was inspired.

The point that Davy Crocket was trying to make, and with which I agree, is that revelation is an eternal principle in which disciples have always had access to authentic and personal revelations for themselves. However, the revelation comes at a “cost” and one generally does not start by being given "great" revelations of the Holy Ghost which they feel obligated to obey, but they generally start by being given inklings of what is right and wrong by their conscience, which they feel obligated to obey. And, starting there, one then learns greater moral principles "Precept by Precept" (per the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls) or "Precept upon Precept" (per the Book of Mormon).


Tumbleweed, I am tiring of the impasse where you simply deny revelation and I simply claim it exists. If you can show that no data is better than data, I will give in. Otherwise, I have nothing that I think will help you develop faith in the eternal principle of revelation at this point.

Clear
sefsi2g

 

[tumbleweed41]

Clear,
You are correct that we have reached an impasse.
I admire your honesty in regards to Joseph Smith. This has been very reveling.
And I regret that you seem to think I was baiting you with my comments on my past as a Christian.
I never denied that revelation can occur, nor did I ever deny that revelation is true to the person to whom it is reveled, only that revelation is beyond proof to due to lack of Empirical Evidence, and is therefor deniable. What you deem to call ignorance.
I must confess that you seem to be a very well read man, however your lack of understanding of the basic concepts of logic and reason, evidenced by your misuse of these concepts is regrettable.
You have provided an interesting, yet somewhat frustrating discussion.
One last thing, I do not thirst, nor itch, I am content.
Good Evening.

 

[Clear]

Tumbleweed;

“I never denied that revelation can occur, nor did I ever deny that revelation is true to the person to whom it is reveled, only that revelation is beyond proof to due to lack of Empirical Evidence, and is therefor deniable. What you deem to call ignorance.”

After apologizing by PM I felt I ought to do so publicly.

Tumbleweed, I am very sorry to have misunderstood you. I assumed early on that you were trying to deny revelation existed and I missed any data where you might have been trying to clarify that you DO believe in authentic revelation from God. I wish you had clarified and confirmed earlier that you DO believe in authentic revelation from God and had corrected the incorrect assumption that you were denying revelation, early on.

If your whole point intended to simply point out that the prophet, or disciple cannot prove what went on in their heart and mind (i.e. the specific experience of unshared revelation), then I very much agree with you, and have always agreed with this specific point. In that context, I think you are perfectly correct in that one cannot directly prove nor share anything that is going on inside their mind and heart other than as a second hand account to another person who may, or may not trust the integrity and sanity of the person relating what they experience. In the context of unshared revelation, Second hand data is all one can offer. In this context, the scriptures themselves, in relating revelations are second hand (or third or fourth hand) accounts of the original revelations.

If the second person wants their own direct empirical evidence of a principle that must be revealed from God, then they must ask for their own revelation.

”And I regret that you seem to think I was baiting you with my comments on my past as a Christian.’

And, I admit defensiveness and insensitivity as I spoke in the context that you were attempting to deny the existence of authentic revelation.

“I must confess that you seem to be a very well read man, however your lack of understanding of the basic concepts of logic and reason, evidenced by your misuse of these concepts is regrettable.”

And I admit to having no training in logic nor philosophy nor sophistry. For any errors I might have made in logic or reasoning, I sincerely apologize to you.


Thank you for making clear what I wish had been clear many posts ago. Perhaps it was clear to the other readers of this thread that you DO believe in and support the principle of authentic revelation but it was not clear to me. I would not have pressed so much in that specific direction had it been clear to me that you believed in and supported the principle of authentic revelation. My only criticism is that I wish you had clarified this point to me earlier.

Good luck in your journey Tumbleweed


Clear
sesin8n

 

[tumbleweed41]

BTW, I never said that I DO believe in reveled revelation. Nor did I personally deny it can occur, only that it is deniable by those who have not received the revelation due to lack of empirical evidence.


And you need no training in sophistry, you're a natural.

 

[Clear]

Hi tumbleweed;

We have wasted spent considerable posts and time already. Myself defending defending the point that those who have authentic revelations have data to confirm revelation exists and that those who have no data are best left to simply admit that they do not know rather than to deny the principle. After considerable posting, you claimed :

“Have I had revelations, yes, many.”

It did not make sense to me that you could truly HAVE authentic revelations and not understand that having received authentic revelation also meant you have data that it exists. This is why I was suspicious that at some point you would claim they were in error, or some other claim in an attempt to point out a fault in authentic communication. Now you claim

“BTW, I never said that I DO believe in reveled revelation.”

. I do NOT mean to offend you, but I have to admit that I am honestly not interested in having you explain what might be going on in your mind on this specific point. I don't want to be caught up in rhetorical discussion at the expense of missing the religious discussion and it is the religious discussion that I am interested in gaining understanding of. Please don’t be offended at this. I do NOT mean to be offensive. (others may be curious) It’s just that I am interested in data that is clear and progressive and consistent and that provides significant insight into authentic communication from God.

I still have not been able to avoid impressions regarding the principle in the Original Post.

There must be a mechanism for basic moral guidance for all morally and mentally competent men. Something to point them some moral “inkling” as to the correct direction where the may gain greater moral knowledge and greater moral understanding. The Original Post is still so impressive and profound in it’s implications, that I plan to return to it later today (after removing a wall downstairs...I am remodeling) If I can find the time. (If you don't hear from me ever again, that means the wall fell on me...)

Clear
sidrtznb

 

[tumbleweed41]

Alright,
Conscience is the ability of humankind to determine right from wrong, moral from immoral, constructive from destructive.
What is the origin of mankind's conscience?
Some would say it is spiritual, that God, or another source, instilled guiding principals to help us determine good from evil. Some would go further to say that that God, or another source, is consistently active in guiding our lives along a moral path.
The person who believes this will claim that they can "feel" God, or a guiding spirit, working in their lives. This feeling, or revelation, can be very real to the person describing it, however their is no empirical evidence that can be provided to prove that God, or a guiding spirit, is the actual source of the believers conscience. One would wonder where an atheist, or Buddhist, of Taoist would get their morality from. Where would the good and moral humanist, who in many ways may be more conscience of those in need than his spiritual neighbor, get his guidance?

On the other hand, anthropological behavior shows that the conscience is a survivor trait. Morality can differ from society to society. From person to person.
Societal evolution has shown that the concepts of right and wrong contribute to the survival of the society as a whole.
The individual morality of the man who kills his neighbor is destructive to the survivability of the society he lives in, so society imprisons, expels, or even executes the individual who is destructive. This contributes to the societal evolution of that society and helps it to survive. Constructive traits are encouraged, while destructive traits are eliminated or discouraged.
In some cases, societies have encouraged destructive traits. However, these destructive traits are usually targeted at the weak, or those outside of that society. Thus strengthening the destructive society while aiming its destruction to those whom they consider less worthy. Genocide, slavery, and religious wars would be examples of of a society justifying its destructive actions as "moral".
As society has grown more global, morals and distinctions between right and wrong have become more universal. There is global outcry against wholesale destruction.
As evolution itself has been a long, slow process, so to is societal evolution.

 

[Clear]

IDEA:

In returning to the subject of that part of conscience which is given by God to men, I think that I was initially impressed by the AMOUNT of clear and specific data in your opening Post regarding the conscience (“light of Christ”, conscience -I do not care what we call it) as a mechanism of basic moral guidance.

Various Sacred literatures speak a great deal regarding the role of the Holy Ghost in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Literature, but the data regarding the specific and critical influence of the “light of Christ” the literature is more scant (regardless of what various records call this specific influence).

I say “critical influence” since, God must provide the mentally competent with a very basic moral knowledge, to provide early choice and simple guidance into greater truth (and accompanying moral responsibility). In the Dead Sea “Charter” Scroll discussion regarding our struggle between good and evil (1Q,4Q,5Q), the Holy Spirit”, which is given to the righteous is of central importance, yet the writer speaks of another influence:

“Like purifying waters, He shall sprinkle each with a spirit of truth...” and explains that “Thereby He shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the Most High...” Dead Sea Scroll 1Q,4Q,5Q

Such descriptions of differing types of moral guidance in various Sacred texts often leave us speculating about details regarding basic moral knowledge . Stone’s Chumash has Hashem God saying : “Behold Man has become like the Unique One among us, knowing good and bad..” But it doesn’t tell us if Adam was simply given “the light of Christ”, or some greater moral knowledge. Still, it is obvious that there are some moral principles Adam is unaware of. According to the “conflict of A&E” literature, Adam had not yet been promised that a savior would come to redeem him. He had not yet undergone any ritual washing, etc. What level of moral knowledge did he have when the statement that Adam knew "good and bad" was made?

This description of the “light of Christ” adds an inescapable moral dimension to spirits of men who did not have opportunity for understanding of greater religious truths. It’s clear from premortal council histories that there is great celebration attending Adam’s spirit’s being placed into a mortal body (from discourse on abbaton) to inaugurate mortality, and it is clear that moral issues are an integral part of the controversies surrounding the consequences of Adam inaugurating mortality, yet details regarding how spirits, (becoming mortal and undergoing mortal education and testing) will recieve moral guidance to attend men is not well described in such documents.

The concept of the light of Christ places a different context on God’s plans. Inside of their varying cultures, Adam’s children are not simply placed into a sea of moral choices and experiences and set adrift, but rather all are given some very basic guidance to a true moral north and what choice will get them there.

The Dead Sea Scroll charter writer explains that :

“God appointed these spirits [of “good” and “evil”] as equals until the time of decree and renewal. .. . He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him until the day of the appointed visitation.” (DSS charter)

If God appoints both good and evil an opportunity to influence men (in order to give them knowledge concerning good and evil and to see which influence men will choose), then a mechanism such as the “Spirit of Christ” must be given to those who have no opportunity to have another type of guidance given them to accurately choose between the two.


IDEA - when you discussed “the Light of Christ” with your mother. Did you discuss what TYPE of knowledge this principle gives to men? For example, the Holy Ghost is able to give many types of guidance. Do you speculate any other role for the “Light of Christ”. I ask because it feels as though the conscience only seems to dispense moral knowledge, and only on basic principles.

It has been illuminating and exciting to look at some writings in context of a “light of Christ” mechanism to sayings such as “to the Children of Your truth You have given insight...for ever.” (DDS 4q thanksgiving psalms) . The Holy Ghost may be squeezed into such sayings regarding "simple insight" but often it doesn't fit the context. However, the "light of Christ" might often fit so much more cleanly in such descriptions

Do you feel the “light of Christ” is a “constant” and equally accessible guide for all mankind? (Providing guidance to all, whereas the Holy Ghost is inclined to touch whom it will and in various ways (visions, dreams, voices, direct inspiration, instilling intelligence, etc, etc.) and on various subjects (morals, future events, explanations, inventions, languages, relations, etc).

Clear.
sidrfu0h5

 

[tumbleweed41]

According to the LDS website,the Light of Christ is defined as...
"...the divine energy, power, or influence that proceeds from God through Christ and gives life and light to all things. The Light of Christ influences people for good and prepares them to receive the Holy Ghost. One manifestation of the Light of Christ is what we call a conscience."

This seems to imply that the conscience is not available without the direct influence of God, through Jesus Christ. And that as a person does good through this influence, it prepares them to receive the Holy Ghost.

The troubling aspect of this belief is that it assumes that all humans have the "light of Christ" as their conscience and basic morality.
This would indicate that the basic definitions of what is right and wrong would be universal.
However anthropological data suggests otherwise. The distinction between right and wrong have varied from society to society, and culture to culture. When separate cultures have met for the first time, many looked upon the practices and morality of the other in abhorrence.

If the conscience were universal, what would be those basics of right and wrong? What universal standards have been found?

 

[Clear]

"...the divine energy, power, or influence that proceeds from God through Christ and gives life and light to all things. The Light of Christ influences people for good and prepares them to receive the Holy Ghost. One manifestation of the Light of Christ is what we call a conscience."

"This seems to imply that the conscience is not available without the direct influence of God, through Jesus Christ. And that as a person does good through this influence, it prepares them to receive the Holy Ghost. "

1) Regarding God’s moral influencing of men: I do not think the quote implies men would not have a conscience without God’s influence but rather, the power of creation "that gives life and light to all things" also created all morally competent men to have a conscience, and by that means, encourages moral progress so as to enable one to receive greater knowledge that is bestowed by the Holy Ghost.

I hope Judao-Christian-Islamic readers readers see the obvious: If there is no God, then there IS no influence from God of any kind. However, If God organized the spirits of men, he may organize them with or without a mechanism of influencing men as part of their nature. The suggestion that God uses a mechanism (a conscience) whereby he encourages us in subtle ways to learn to do good does not create a new reality or a new relationship with God, but it simply implies that God provides at least a minimal moral direction.

Remember: God cannot ultimately and justly reward nor punish men without providing us moral direction as to how to gain reward and how to avoid punishment. Is there a better mechanism for God’s innate moral influence?

"The troubling aspect of this belief is that it assumes that all humans have the "light of Christ" as their conscience and basic morality. This would indicate that the basic definitions of what is right and wrong would be universal. However anthropological data suggests otherwise.

Remember, if ex-nihilo theists are correct that God created men from nothing, then God did create man’s basic morality, regardless of whether one calls it a conscience or calls it something else. However, the statement tends to confuse us since it mixes God’s moral laws(which contain moral principles that ARE universal and immoveable) with Societal morals and opinions (which vary). The two different sets of laws are not the same.

Anthropological studies describing varying societal mores among different societies are NOT describing God’s eternal moral laws. In a primitive society it may be morally "good" to murder for monetary gain or it may be "evil" in another society, but in God’s laws, it is never morally acceptable to murder for simple monetary gain, in God’s moral laws, this is ALWAYS EVIL. One set of moral rules are often variable and God's set of moral rules are immoveable and do not change. Still, God must have some mechanism to influence men from lower and variable moral laws which they themselves create to higher and better moral laws which he would like them to learn to live.

Even in "civil societies", I do not believe most men are primarily influenced by the subtle influence of "conscience", but rather they are most influenced by their own powerful desires and cultural influences. Still, I believe the influence of God is available to them to the degree they desire it and are willing to pay attention to it. The Abrahamic youth stories are a good example of the rare youth that seeks to develop his conscience as a moral guide rather than adopting the moral values of the idolatrous culture in which he is raised. Anthropological studies and History, both religious and profane simply show that men generally do not listen to the subtle voice of their conscience; and they do not generally obey a set of immoveable laws from God, but obey lessor moral laws.

If there are eternal moral verities, then certain things are always evil regardless of whether a culture is able to recognize it any more. The Enoch literature refers to men at the time of Noah, practicing evil that became so deeply ingrained in their society that children influenced by those societies did not have sufficient chance to learn to choose good. The influence of individual conscience was simply eclipsed by the predominating evil influence of their society. In the Enoch histories, it was the fact that society had descended to this moral "tipping point" which necessitated it’s destruction.

Regardless of moral "laws" of men’s various cultures, there are certain moral verities which exist. It does not matter if it is part of the culture of a society to torture, rape, and then murder a child, it is still morally wrong to do so by God’s eternal moral laws.

Clear
siX3 gg