The Truth Of Mormonism

[Gadianton]

But my chats with friends and family....

What are their education levels?

I've never known anyone bear testimony of the Sacred Grove to mean anything other than two physical beings, GTF and Christ, literally visited Joseph Smith. Two physical beings made of real atoms visited Joseph Smith. In fact, these founding doctrines are so precisely for their intense physical reality. If there is no question that God the Father and the Son literally visited the grove and instructed Joseph Smith, then once you're certain about that fact, then you've basically got to swallow everything else. I mean, if I *really* believed Joseph Smith was visited by God and Jesus -- physical beings in a real grove -- then I'd give him a free pass on polygamy and all the other stuff.

But then comes the bait and switch: the good feelings and burning in the bosom. I'm less skeptical of your dealings with family and friends if what is meant is that through profoundly meaningful experiences, they believe in the sacred grove. Obviously, nobody has photos of the grove thing happening and so there's no scientific proof of the grove. In fact, as Brigham Young said, "Pray that you don't see an angel"! The Church massively downplays real evidence, even and especially when talking about physical reality. But the statements of testimony are meant to be statements of physical fact, even if the conviction of the words came through means that have nothing to do with science or logic etc.

Saying God the Father and Jesus visited Joseph Smith in the grove is the exact kind of statement as saying the earth is round. In both cases, my only reason for believing either might be that my parents taught me these things and I feel good about them.

[Res Ipsa]

But my chats with friends and family....

What are their education levels?

I've never known anyone bear testimony of the Sacred Grove to mean anything other than two physical beings, GTF and Christ, literally visited Joseph Smith. Two physical beings made of real atoms visited Joseph Smith. In fact, these founding doctrines are so precisely for their intense physical reality. If there is no question that God the Father and the Son literally visited the grove and instructed Joseph Smith, then once you're certain about that fact, then you've basically got to swallow everything else. I mean, if I *really* believed Joseph Smith was visited by God and Jesus -- physical beings in a real grove -- then I'd give him a free pass on polygamy and all the other stuff.

But then comes the bait and switch: the good feelings and burning in the bosom. I'm less skeptical of your dealings with family and friends if what is meant is that through profoundly meaningful experiences, they believe in the sacred grove. Obviously, nobody has photos of the grove thing happening and so there's no scientific proof of the grove. In fact, as Brigham Young said, "Pray that you don't see an angel"! The Church massively downplays real evidence, even and especially when talking about physical reality. But the statements of testimony are meant to be statements of physical fact, even if the conviction of the words came through means that have nothing to do with science or logic etc.

Saying God the Father and Jesus visited Joseph Smith in the grove is the exact kind of statement as saying the earth is round. In both cases, my only reason for believing either might be that my parents taught me these things and I feel good about them.

In terms of education, it varies pretty widely. I agree that when LDS folks make specific factual claims, they often mean "factually true." I was thinking more of "the church is true" or "the Book of Mormon is God's word."

[Kishkumen]

Yes. If pressed I'd be willing to accept Kishkumen's terminology of "facts" versus "truth". As long as we still have a word for plain old facts, it's not essential that it be "truth". "Truth" can get repurposed to mean something else. Nullius in verbis.

I retain a suspicion, however, that people who use the word "truth" for non-factual things are not really selecting that word arbitrarily. I suspect that even if they manage to avoid blatantly fallacious equivocation they may still be trading, connotatively, on the association of the the word "truth" with facts. It makes things sound so solid and certain. As deconstructionists would like to point out, one is apt to be especially keen to sound solid and certain precisely when things are not certain at all.

But how long in the history of the word truth do you suppose it has had a materialist sense? It is interesting to me that you seem to be saying that those who have other ideas of what truth is that include more than material facts are misappropriating the word in some way. Are they? How long has it been the case that truth referred to objective facts in a kind of scientific, materialist sense? Perhaps the materialist worldview in which truth equals material facts is a younger, narrower usage that, however normative seeming now, represents the innovation or even the misappropriation. This usage is the departure from older ideas of truth.

[Res Ipsa]

Yes. If pressed I'd be willing to accept Kishkumen's terminology of "facts" versus "truth". As long as we still have a word for plain old facts, it's not essential that it be "truth". "Truth" can get repurposed to mean something else. Nullius in verbis.

I retain a suspicion, however, that people who use the word "truth" for non-factual things are not really selecting that word arbitrarily. I suspect that even if they manage to avoid blatantly fallacious equivocation they may still be trading, connotatively, on the association of the the word "truth" with facts. It makes things sound so solid and certain. As deconstructionists would like to point out, one is apt to be especially keen to sound solid and certain precisely when things are not certain at all.

But how long in the history of the word truth do you suppose it has had a materialist sense? It is interesting to me that you seem to be saying that those who have other ideas of what truth is that include more than material facts are misappropriating the word in some way. Are they? How long has it been the case that truth referred to objective facts in a kind of scientific, materialist sense? Perhaps the materialist worldview in which truth equals material facts is a younger, narrower usage that, however normative seeming now, represents the innovation or even the misappropriation. This usage is the departure from older ideas of truth.

Interesting questions. How did ancient Romans think about truth?

[Kishkumen]

Interesting questions. How did ancient Romans think about truth?

That is a difficult and complicated question. I do know, however, that there were no strict materialist Romans, at least of which I am aware. Most Romans believed in divinities, even Epicureans did. So there would definitely be truths and true things that were not limited to facts of the material world.

I may be wrong about Epicureans. I have this vague recollection that their gods were material, just far removed from the human sphere.

ETA:

OK, it appears that there is no scholarly agreement on this:

Epicureanism does not deny the existence of the gods; rather it denies their involvement in the world. According to Epicureanism, the gods do not interfere with human lives or the rest of the universe in any way[37] – thus, it shuns the idea that frightening weather events are divine retribution.[38] One of the fears the Epicurean ought to be freed from is fear relating to the actions of the gods.[39] The manner in which the Epicurean gods exist is still disputed. Some scholars say that Epicureanism believes that the gods exist outside the mind as material objects (the realist position), while others assert that the gods only exist in our minds as ideals (the idealist position).[37][40][41] The realist position holds that Epicureans understand the gods as existing as physical and immortal beings made of atoms that reside somewhere in reality.[37][41] However, the gods are completely separate from the rest of reality; they are uninterested in it, play no role in it, and remain completely undisturbed by it.[42] Instead, the gods live in what is called the metakosmia, or the space between worlds.[43] Contrarily, the idealist (sometimes called the “non-realist position” to avoid confusion) position holds that the gods are just idealized forms of the best human life,[40][44] and it is thought that the gods were emblematic of the life one should aspire towards.[40] The debate between these two positions was revived by A. A. Long and David Sedley in their 1987 book, The Hellenistic Philosophers, in which the two argued in favour of the idealist position.[40][41] While a scholarly consensus has yet to be reached, the realist position remains the prevailing viewpoint at this time.[40][41]

[Res Ipsa]

Interesting questions. How did ancient Romans think about truth?

That is a difficult and complicated question. I do know, however, that there were no strict materialist Romans, at least of which I am aware. Most Romans believed in divinities, even Epicureans did. So there would definitely be truths and true things that were not limited to facts of the material world.

I may be wrong about Epicureans. I have this vague recollection that their gods were material, just far removed from the human sphere.

ETA:

OK, it appears that there is no scholarly agreement on this:

Epicureanism does not deny the existence of the gods; rather it denies their involvement in the world. According to Epicureanism, the gods do not interfere with human lives or the rest of the universe in any way[37] – thus, it shuns the idea that frightening weather events are divine retribution.[38] One of the fears the Epicurean ought to be freed from is fear relating to the actions of the gods.[39] The manner in which the Epicurean gods exist is still disputed. Some scholars say that Epicureanism believes that the gods exist outside the mind as material objects (the realist position), while others assert that the gods only exist in our minds as ideals (the idealist position).[37][40][41] The realist position holds that Epicureans understand the gods as existing as physical and immortal beings made of atoms that reside somewhere in reality.[37][41] However, the gods are completely separate from the rest of reality; they are uninterested in it, play no role in it, and remain completely undisturbed by it.[42] Instead, the gods live in what is called the metakosmia, or the space between worlds.[43] Contrarily, the idealist (sometimes called the “non-realist position” to avoid confusion) position holds that the gods are just idealized forms of the best human life,[40][44] and it is thought that the gods were emblematic of the life one should aspire towards.[40] The debate between these two positions was revived by A. A. Long and David Sedley in their 1987 book, The Hellenistic Philosophers, in which the two argued in favour of the idealist position.[40][41] While a scholarly consensus has yet to be reached, the realist position remains the prevailing viewpoint at this time.[40][41]

Thanks!

[Physics Guy]

The kind of objective truth that I think is the old meaning of "truth" is not necessarily anything about materialism. It's just the ordinary down-to-earth truth that this car is mine or that as a matter of fact I forgot to walk the dogs, honey.

It's also the truth at which natural science aims. There isn't really anything more to the scientific method, despite what you might have learned in school about science, than being as hard-nosed and careful as a used car buyer. Science only looks like this lofty philosophical edifice, with all kinds of abstract assumptions, when you read its condensed conclusions. If you get into it in detail, go into the lab and learn to do it all for yourself, it's as down-to-earth as a stack of dirty dishes.

There's an element of pragmatism in that kind of truth, to be sure. The wise used car buyer is skeptical but not infinitely so, and the point at which even a hard-nosed buyer will accept things on faith is probably determined by pragmatic concerns about risk versus effort. But what drives me nuts about the pragmatic definitions of truth, apparently including Jordan Peterson's, is that people don't ask the pretty important question, "Why is it useful to believe this?" If I find some belief useful, I'm really going to want to ask that question, because learning more about why my belief is useful could help me make it even more useful, or perhaps warn me of situations in which it might not be so useful. And for a heck of a lot of beliefs, I'm afraid, the main reason why it is useful to believe them is that ... they are true, in the good old naïve sense of truth. The pragmatic definition of truth proves not to be very useful itself. I guess that means it's not true.

[Moksha]

Who here can point me to the actual truth in life? Where can it be found? Is there one truth? Or does everyone have their own individual truth?

Actual truth is double fare: For what is truth and if truth where?

Fantasy can help provide us with solace and peace.

[Kishkumen]

The kind of objective truth that I think is the old meaning of "truth" is not necessarily anything about materialism. It's just the ordinary down-to-earth truth that this car is mine or that as a matter of fact I forgot to walk the dogs, honey.

It's also the truth at which natural science aims. There isn't really anything more to the scientific method, despite what you might have learned in school about science, than being as hard-nosed and careful as a used car buyer. Science only looks like this lofty philosophical edifice, with all kinds of abstract assumptions, when you read its condensed conclusions. If you get into it in detail, go into the lab and learn to do it all for yourself, it's as down-to-earth as a stack of dirty dishes.

There's an element of pragmatism in that kind of truth, to be sure. The wise used car buyer is skeptical but not infinitely so, and the point at which even a hard-nosed buyer will accept things on faith is probably determined by pragmatic concerns about risk versus effort. But what drives me nuts about the pragmatic definitions of truth, apparently including Jordan Peterson's, is that people don't ask the pretty important question, "Why is it useful to believe this?" If I find some belief useful, I'm really going to want to ask that question, because learning more about why my belief is useful could help me make it even more useful, or perhaps warn me of situations in which it might not be so useful. And for a heck of a lot of beliefs, I'm afraid, the main reason why it is useful to believe them is that ... they are true, in the good old naïve sense of truth. The pragmatic definition of truth proves not to be very useful itself. I guess that means it's not true.

I think it goes further than this, honestly. What I mean is this: it is one thing to rely on the scientific method to solve certain kinds of problems, and another to say that anything that does not easily lend itself to scientific verification does not exist and is not worthy of adult attention. Mind you, I am not attributing to you the latter position, but I do think that very many people today are committed to a scientism wherein science has become an ideology that dictates what is worthy of human effort and interest. There are two categories in this ideology: what science deals in, and the decidedly inferior world of the emotional and imaginary. A lot of village atheist ex-Mormons are committed to this ideology.

[Atlanticmike]

Thank you.

OK, so there was a time when I would have completely agreed with you. But at some point I came to see myself as unnecessarily hewing to an artificial rigidity in how I viewed testimonies. The real problem here, in my opinion, is not that an LDS person will say, "I know the Church is true." The problem is that our culture has increasingly moved to a frankly narrow sense of what all of this means. There are different ways of knowing and different kinds of truth. I am happy to concede that a happy LDS person can "know the Church is true."

On the other hand, I do not allow for people to "know that the Book of Mormon" was written in antiquity. There simply is insufficient evidence to support such a claim, and this is also quite a different thing from saying "I know the Church is true." Here we are talking about factual claims of a non-subjective kind. My willingness to claim a book was written in antiquity does not change events on the timeline. Here is where the LDS Church has problems. LDS leaders and scholars insist it is important to believe that the Book of Mormon's narratives describe events that occurred in antiquity.

I consider that demand a deal breaker. I could stand up in a meeting and say "I know the Gospel is true," and so forth, but I will not support the idea that there are these otherwise unknown ancient civilizations described in a book that Joseph Smith appears to have written in the late 1820s. I can even support the idea that the Book of Mormon is a miraculous work, but that does not entail, in my mind, a belief that it is describing events that occurred between the 6th century BC and the 5th century AD in ancient America.

There is something wrong, I think, with fabricating false histories and imposing them on people as though they were factual. Joseph Smith had a very unusual epistemology, and so I am not comfortable saying that he composed a false history. What he did was compose an American Bible, which was not ever history in the sense we understand it today. Over time it was inevitable, thanks to changes in how people view history, that the factual and historical nature of "Bibles" would be rightly challenged. In that new light, the treatment of the Book of Mormon as history is no longer tenable, and it should be abandoned. Unfortunately, it will require a lot of work to change views on the Book of Mormon without fatally undermining Mormonism altogether.

I am happy to concede that a happy LDS person can "know the Church is true."

Many of my siblings "know the church is true" but when pressed about historical questions they wave them off as not important to that belief. What kind of "true" is the Mormon church if the Book of Mormon is fictional?

That’s not the truth I’m talk about. I’m talking about the truth we live everyday. Look at it this way. Tomorrow Fence Sitter wakes up and records everything he does during the day in a journal. At night before going to bed you look at the journal and read what you did during the day. My question to you is, when you’re reading your journal, are you reading the truth. I mean you are, correct? If you didn’t lie then your Journal entries are the truth.

All right! Different scenario. A 16 year old boy has no desire to live anymore and one of his closest friends tries to help before he drives off the side of a cliff which will end his life. The friend gives the boy two journals to read in hopes one of them will help the boy change his mind. One is Fence Sitters journal, a journal that included the truth about a life lived and in the end right before Fence Sitter passes away, his last journal entry says he’s extremely happy with the life he lived and he wouldn’t change one truth about his life. When Fence Sitter takes his final breath, he’s surrounded by family members that love him and are willing to stand beside him in his final moments here on earth. The second journal the friend gives the boy also contains the truth of a life lived in a much different way than how Fence Sitters lived. A life of extreme hardship, there’s entries in the journal that talk about spending years in prison, robbing stores, stealing cars, being on drugs for years and years. The 16 year old flips to the last entry to see that the person who wrote down all the truths found in the journal ended up dying in a prison hospital with a nurse checking in on him every hour or so. He died alone.

The sixteen year old boy decides to give life one more chance and decides to use Fence Sitters journal as a reference in hopes for the same outcome when it’s his time to pass away. Throughout his life he has person after person tell him he’s ignorant for living the way he’s living his truth! But he’s confident he’s on the right track because he has a journal filled with actual facts to guide him. In the end, the 16 year old boy ended up living to 84 years old. And his last journal entry said he was surrounded by his children, grandchildren and great grand children.

Ok! Fence sitter! Up to this point in my little scenario we have three journals filled with absolute truths if you include the sixteen year olds journal. So let’s go back to your post where you said your siblings “know the church is true”. My question to you is, why does it matter if the church or Book of Mormon is “true” if it helps your siblings reach the end of their life surrounded by loved ones? If the Book of Mormon gives your siblings guidance like your journal gave the 16 year old guidance, and they’re writing down their truths in a journal, why does it matter if the Book of Mormon is true or not if the outcome ends up being the same and your siblings are surrounded by loved ones when it’s their time to pass away? Are your siblings journal entrees not “truth” because they were using the Book of Mormon as a reference?