Facts verses feelings (revised version 7/26)

You may have noticed I have edited this post as it was just too freaking loooooong and I have re-thought sand re-clarified some of my comments. As before, it is an extention of the naysayers posting.

Rick, I respect your criteria for choosing which sources of information to place your trust in. This makes sense to me enough to understand and respect your point of view. Note that I have not tried to persuade anyone to accept any sort of mystic belief. Even though you understandably choose not to accept this belief, based on it's improbability, I only suggest that one explore the possibility, however remote, that things of a spiritual nature could be a reality (and thus maybe, just maybe, religous types are not all irrational).

Yes, the definition of what is "good" can vary. However, Rick, you proceeded to offer your own definition of good, which is to "see how your beliefs are affecting your environment, socially and physically". But, basing your actions according to the definition you have offered, is nothing more than acting on "good intentions", yet you claim you "don't think that good intentions are reason enough to be the primary motivating factor behind one's actions." If not, then what is? I guess I just need you to elaborate a little more on this. And who determines the real and true definition of what is good?

As for tithing, if someone feels they can only afford to pay on the net amount, that's fine too. The idea that paying on the gross is required in order to consider oneself an honest tithe payer is a propagated myth. It's not anyone else's business to make generalized speculations on who deserves more or less "blessings".

Also, this billion dollar organization has a major welfare system and will never expect or allow you to go without food or money to pay the bills. The church needing money is secondary to the individual showing of one's faith through a willingness to sacrifice. Furthermore, the church "as a society" does not ask for us to give up 10%. Rather it is believed that GOD is doing the asking. What it comes down to is either you believe in the prophets, and therefore God......or you don't. If you DO, then you can accept that by paying tithing you will be "blessed". If you don't, well then you wouldn't, and shouldn't be obligated to pay tithing. Fair enough?

You state...I would say that given the infinitesimally small chance that these feelings are correct, we'd be just as well off not relying solely on anyone's feelings in any decision making procedure.

Agreed. We should never rely solely on anyone else's feelings. I guess I haven't done a very good job of expressing that point. Nobody has to believe in the prophet. That is where the idea of receiving our own personal revelations, pertaining to whether our not we are hearing a prophet, comes into play. If one does NOT personally feel they have received any legitimate, divinely originated feelings in regards to the prophet, then by all means it would seem silly to rely on the prophet for any decision making procedure.

As for "voting" on leaders, I think I covered the technicalities in the factual explanation of "stats and facts" posting. Certianly it is understood that leaders who are choosing other leaders may have factors in their life that will occasionally cloud their ability to receive the right answer, so if there is a serious concern over their decision, let it be known. The point of this system is to aspire to do the best that they can to receive a revelation in making that decision, for the betterment of everyone.

The reason this can still make sense is that, aside from the prophet, we are only relying on people to perform a specific church duty, not to pronounce doctrine itself. They may not be any more deserving than anyone else (or even want the calling), but they may benefit others somehow or may benefit themselves through the learning experience.

But the bottom line is that we only "sustain" or give our support to leaders. And as long as these leaders are fulfilling their church duties according to doctrine (and without commiting serious infractions to the doctrine themselves) we can continue to support them. But we do not actually rely on any leaders to determine the actual church doctrine, aside from the prophet himself, whom doctrine states God will remove from his position through death should a mistake have been made in selecting him. Thus while the prophet himself is fallible in his personal life and thinking, it is believed that anything he says in the capacity and context of a prophet CAN be considered infallible, since it can be considered that the infallible God himself is in control of the prophet's leadership position.

Sure, doctrine is subject to interpretation, that is why we are ALL encouraged to be well-studied on the scriptures ourselves, and can decide for ourselves what the scriptures and the prophet are saying. Usually it's pretty obvious, except perhaps in the case of difficult biblical passages that don't make much sense We may receive personal revelations or have opinions as to what the less obvious things mean, but only the acting prophet is entitled to make any official churchwide interpretation.

Nice logic excercise concerning known truths by the way. Don't you love this stuff? In response, I should clarify that when I refer to "truth" here, I mean complete truth, or at least known truths which remain true in the context of complete truth. I guess the problem here is defining what God is. Let's decide here that the definition of what constitutes a "God" is not only the ability to be our creator, but also one who possesses a knowledge of complete truth in all things. Based on this definition, it is assumed that confirmations from God are an indicator of a partial truth that remains true in the context of complete truth.

Sweet analogy with the computer too. Good one! But, if the computer were to become "self aware" (as is often proposed in sci-fi) would it not also still see the benefit from learning more from the human creater? As for me, since I cannot fathom how to create a universe with all matter and living things, I would consider the creator as a pretty good source of intelligence. Especially if you have established through a personal revelation that God is the possessor of complete truth.

And it's true there is no obvious conduit for communications between this entitiy and ourselves, but I do not agree that this neatly disproves a creator's capabilities to communicate. Why should the capability of a god to communicate with us automatically mean that there would be a "much higher rate of actual irrefutable communiques than we have now". What if we also consider the purpose and intentions of this being. Why do you assume that this being desires to be obvious?

Anyhow, this could lead us to a discussion of the nature of God as well as the purpose of life, however the mutual establishment of the existance of God in the first place would be a prerequisite for that discussion.

You say...at most, we have a few highly improbable anecdotal evidences of such a communication which are sketchy at best.

I assume you deem these as sketchy because feelings can be unreliable. But what if these evidences are not just based on feelings. I don't bring this up to minimize the legitimacy of feelings, but just to inject this aspect of revelation into the argument. Supposing somebody heard an audible voice, or a physical vision that could not be easily explained by our usual grip on reality? What if this happened to you? Would you assume you are a hallucinating or would you know what you saw or heard.

What if you were drowning, with nobody else around, in a lake, then woke up alive on the shore, kept it a secret (because the reason you were drowning was due to your own foolishness of going boating alone) only to have a preisthood holder, who could have known nothing of the event, refer to at a later time, in a patriarchial blessing?

What if you were relaxing upstairs, and then heard an audible voice that directed you to go downstairs and rescue your child from suffocating in a locked trunk, which you had absolutely no idea he was in? What is the likelihood that this is coincidence? In the case of both of these actual accouts, it seems slim. Slim enough to at least take these accounts as worth contemplating, I would think.

Indeed these accounts have not happened to you, Rick Beres, first hand, but out of curiosity, how would you approach disproving that these events occured, as compared to your arguments regarding nebulous feelings. How much weight would you put in these accounts if hypothetically it was your wife, or mother or someone whose credibility were considered as sound as any one or anything else. And finally, what would you conclude if such an event happened to you? I'm not saying these stories prove anything to anybody else, just suggesting that you ponder how you would process such an experience.

I agree that the open exchange of ideas is important (and interesting). I take no offense at questions, or challenging statements. I didn't bring up the mud-slinging issue to hinder anyone from freely expressing their opinions, (even if those opinions should happen to be in the form of angry rhetoric). I just wanted to point out that I feel it's more conductive to conversation and ultimatley more persuasive when people make efforts to evaluate if their critical comments are presented as fairly and objectively as possible. I think Rick has been doing a fine job of this. Thankyou Rick.