Hi Kheprem-Kaset :
I’ve long thought that the ancient Judao-Christian model where God’s main purpose was to allow spirits to be educated in principles which will ultimately allow them to live forever in harmony and happiness eternally was a good model to explain varying experiences and specific but varying instructions from God to individuals. This moral education seems, most often, to come bit by bit, “Precept by Precept” and in one’s own language and symbol set.
ALL INDIVIDUALS HAVE A RIGHT TO PERSONAL INSPIRATION. - I like the justness in this concept.
For example, authentic inspiration seems to be given to individuals who have accepted and are committed to differing systems of belief. However, this need not cause anxiety or confusion if there are moral laws which explain why such different specific instructions are given to individuals who do not believe the same base doctrines.
For example, regarding Moral Laws, if the Holy spirit gives knowledge and understanding based on predictable and logical rules such as : moral priority (i.e.what does the person or people most need to know and understand at this specific time), and to the extent that they are able to receive it (i.e. the knowledge is appropriate to their mental and social state); and to the extent that they are willing to use the knowledge properly, then this principle would make it more understandable why differing individuals of different cultures; different abilities; differing moral affinities, might indeed, be given moral guidance and influence by the Holy Ghost, that, on the surface, appear inconsistent. Yet this varying influence by God and/or the Holy Spirit can remain tethered to the accomplishment of God's one great motive of improving mankind’s moral condition.
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGE AND DIFFERENT SYMBOLISM
Inside of this model of relativity, I would have no reason to doubt the description of Kheprem-Kasets’ experience.
I do think that, in general, the communication within most revelatory experiences are highly symbolic and as such, highly dependent upon the symbol set and bias of the person receiving the experience.
For example, a german would tend to hear a revelatory voice in german, whereas a spaniard would hear the revelatory voice in spanish, etc. It is inconsistent with revelation, in the main, to have authentic communication sent in gibberish or in some symbol set the receiver would not be able to understand at some point (though the receiver of revelation may not understand the revelation fully at the time it is given).
For example, the prophet Zephaniah describes this principle of his revelation being read in his own language (not that it wasn’t IN other languages, but that HE reads it in HIS language) : “Then I looked, and I saw him with a manuscript in his hand. He began to unroll it. 2 Now after he spread it out, I read it in my own language. (apocalypse of Zephaniah 7:1-5)
I believe this adherence to the symbol set of the one receiving the revelation is generally true of visual and other “expected traditional” symbol sets just as it holds to the language of speech. This means that revelations which are perfectly authentic and given to one person may seem nonsensical, even contradictory, to another person having another language and symbolic background and another bias.
For example, one poster on a forum described a personal belief and a symbol set which discouraged his belief in experiences others had which did not confirm his own specific spiritual belief and biases whereas a belief in these principles allows one to understand there may be some rational consistency of varying accounts that follow general rules. Thus one can comfortably avoid dismissing revelatory experiences that are different than their own. It may even give them the contextual tools to make sense of and benefit from such experiences from other religions.
THE UTILITY OF UNDERSTANDING THAT GOD SPEAKS IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGE AND IN DIFFERENT SYMBOLISM. This simple principle is profound and immensely important, because it is a principle which clarifies, explains and makes useful a host of other facts and situations. It coordinates and makes sense of varying experiences.
Our ability to make sense of and subsequently "value" certain events, (or at least not to dismiss a claim as patently untrue), is highly dependent upon our own prior experiences, prior data sets; and prior understanding (whether correct or not).
This “religious relativity” allows specific types of theists to view others as good and moral people who are obedient to the degree of knowledge they are given, DESPITE any doctrinal disagreement they may have with other theists. It is a religious version of “Einstein’s theory of General Relativity”. It is a "Religious theory of Relativity" that makes plausible sense out of a vast amount of what is confusing and frustrating to the largest part of the modern Christian world. It describes how God and the spirit of the Holy Ghost may work with disparate levels of truth and differing beliefs.
This is an issue I’ve considered before, and I think the restorationist take on the Holy Ghost is a key principle missing in this confused and angry; competing, dis-unified, unkind and back biting religious world
For example, I was speaking to the LDS poster named Katzpur regarding how just a few principles help explain why individuals are drawn to different belief systems and various philosophies and various levels of truths and why inspiration from God can be involved in various religious movements rather than ONLY being involved in Christianity.
When she was explaining why she believed other religions have a right to receive revelatory guidance in the same way that Christianity received revelatory guidance, Katzpur quoted the LDS Apostle, B.H. Roberts explaination that truth comes in many forms and through many different individuals. He explained :
"While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men, it is ONE of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth; yet God is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. He raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them… Whenever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom His Spirit can communicate, lo! He makes of him a teacher of men." While such principles do not necessarily apply to evil men who achieve power and influence, it explains why both Gandi and Mother Teresa can hold to different dogma, yet teach base principles for the same God.
I certainly have come to believe that God can and does speak to anyone who places themselves in a position to hear him and who are wanting and willing to do what he tells them.
I hope you have a wonderful journey and continue to have inspiration and experiences that guide you from one level of knowledge to greater levels throughout your life.
See you Kheprem-Kaset
Clear
εισεσεω
, did you ever tell your pastor friend?
