Is all truth useful?

[_skippy the dead]

What is the "correct "answer?

42

How is that useful to you?

Sorry - that was a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe reference.

[Guest]

How is that useful to you?

Sorry - that was a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe reference.

I got it! The answer to the ultimate question in life is 42! Of course there was that little problem with knowing what the question was...

[_DonBradley]

It is not the sight of an individual, but rather the pattern of their behavior, that is the basis for a psychological diagnosis or categorization. And thousands of instances of participation in discussion over a period of years might well provide quite sufficient basis for such categorization.

Don

Don,

Would you feel happy about someone "diagnosing" your personality only from what you've posted online?

Ray,

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Beastie's conclusion, merely parrying the false assertion that psychological classification requires "sight"--as though it couldn't be effectively done by a blind psychologist. Rather, such classification is based on behavior. Classification based on behavior can be done well or poorly, but this is the basis on which it is to be done.

Would I like to be "diagnosed" with some disorder based on my online behavior? No. I would not like to be diagnosed with any disorder at all! However, if I were posting apparently serious suicidal thoughts over time, would one be justified in concluding that I was probably depressed on this basis? Of course. If were posting, over years, apparently sincere fears that demons, aliens, or government nanobots were entering my bodily orifices, would one be justified in concluding that I was probably a paranoid schizophrenic? Again, of course. And if I were consistently posting authoritarian opinions and condemnations on a host of subjects and aimed at a variety of persons over a period of years, would one be justified in concluding that I had an authoritarian personality? Why not? I'm not going to take the trouble to review Charity's online behavior patterns and compare them against the authoritarian-personality description or criteria, because, frankly, I don't care whether Charity is an authoritarian personality, an alien from the planet Zork, or another online persona of Bob Crockett. But I see no inherent reason why one carefully applying those criteria to her extensive posting record would be unable to make a determination one way or the other.

Don

[_Mercury]

Mormonism is not truth so your paradigm has already been dead and buried for a while now.

So says the Ostritch.

actually I am the walrus.

Coocoocachoo

[_DonBradley]

Once you've tasted the Holy Ghost, you can tell the difference between human emotion and divine influence. The same as you can tell the difference between sugar and salt.

No you can't. Any Mormon who has taken seriously the idea of guiding his or her life by personal revelation encounters instances when apparent inspiration doesn't work out. And early LDS history is full of unfulfilled prophecies and blessings given by Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith, Sr., etc., etc. So if one who has tasted the Holy Ghost can always tell the difference, they never tasted it.

Don

[_skippy the dead]

I got it! The answer to the ultimate question in life is 42! Of course there was that little problem with knowing what the question was...

Come back in 11 million years, though. . . .

[_charity]

As noted the past errors reflects on how much we can trust the prophets and apostles.

First, the determination has to be made about something being an error or not. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone on this board, including myself, has the ability to do that with regards to juding the actions of past prophets. Or present day prophets.

It also can teach us how to approach things better, a lesson that seems lost for the most part on how the LDS Church is still managed and run.

Such "lessons" don't come from the bottom up.

Believers have already been given the keys and the responsibility to determine what is reveleation for themselves. Whatever the prophet says, we are held accountable for searching out and confirming on our own. That has been within the Church from the beginning. If anyone does not do that, the resonsibility lies on his/her own shoulders.

This is not true. Believers are told to pray and find out that what the leader says IS the truth not if it is true. If the member comes back and says, no, what the prophet says is not of God then the member is in trouble. Just ask Lowell Bennion. He was vocal about the priesthood ban and some of the now not official doctrine that was being discussed to justify it and he was essentially put on the shelf.

If the member comes back and says "the prophet is wrong" he/she has been listening to the wrong source. The Holy Ghost confirms truth. Or fails to give a confirming witness to something that is in error. The only comment the member can make is "I did not receive a confirmation from the Holy Ghost that this was correct."

[_DonBradley]

It also can teach us how to approach things better, a lesson that seems lost for the most part on how the LDS Church is still managed and run.

Such "lessons" don't come from the bottom up.

"No, JB, I'm not an authoritarian. Just ask Our Leaders, by whom all judgments must be made."

[_charity]

by the way, Charity, in the "fat ass" example, are you suggesting that it's best to be ignorant of the fact that one is overweight? The question of whether it would be good for others to "inform" one of one's weight problem with insults is entirely separate from the question of whether knowing the truth (I.e., reality) of the problem is useful. To not know that one was overweight would be harmful, even potentially fatal in some cases. While truths should be communicated kindly, where possible, and in contexts where they are most likely to be useful, they should, ultimately, be communicated.

You really think that a person is ignorant of the fact that he/she is overweight? :D (Thanks, Dr. Shades for the smiilie. That statement that a person needs someone to tell them they are overweight really deserved it.)

There is nothing "commonsensical" about Boyd K. Packer's analogy between withholding historical truths and refraining from gratuitous insults. It's very useful for religionists to know whether there is evidence that their beliefs are false and their leaders uninspired. Packer purposely conflates the issue of truth with that of civility, in order to tar honesty and accuracy with the brush of cruelty. Packer's analogy leaves much to be desired. It isn't true, and it isn't useful. [/quote]

You cannot make a case for misunderstood or not understood history to lead to the decision that beliefs are false or leaders are uninspired. Truth with civility? I don't see the connection. What Elder Packer said didn't come anywhere close to saying that being honest and accurate was cruel.

[_Ray A]

Skippy the Dead posted: If someone has a fat ass, and we call them a "fat ass", it is not insult BECAUSE IT'S TRUE! Or if someone is born of an unwed mother, and we call them a "bastard", it's not an insult BECAUSE IT'S TRUE! See how silly this position is?

I answered: Do I see this as a tacit admission that "not all truth is useful?" Maybe people will back off castigating Elder Packer for saying that when they see how much common sense is contained in that sentence.

Skippy came back with: Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.

My question is: What is the difference? Is it really apples and oranges or is it more like Gravensteins and MacIntosh?

I think the pursuit of historical truth is absolutely essential. I've many times mentioned Dr. Eric Williams' book British Historians and the West Indies, which is one of the most intriguing books I ever read (Amazon has not had any reviewers yet: http://www.amazon.com/British-Historian ... 1881316645), though it was first published in 1964, but the JSTOR did review it). It remains rather obscure, because it's politically incorrect. It reveals the crass racism of some of the greatest figures in English history, though there are one or two "heroes" among his list.

I don't think this is in the same category as a "fat ass" comment. Elder Packer's analogy has merit, but not in the context of the search for historical truth. It is really "apples and oranges". Having said that, I think anti-Mormon (yes, I use that word without shame) hyperbole sometimes amounts to "fat ass" comments. No one thinks any less of Carlyle as a literary figure for his racist sentiments, and I dare say even "presentism" may have been used in his defence. His writing is not analysed by his personal views, but on literary merit. What Williams demonstrated is that poltically incorrect commentary has been effectively buried by modern historians (and I'm not saying such commentary is "correct", but it is a fact). You won't read this sort of thing in Churchill's writings on the history of the English speaking peoples.

Is such commentary "useful"? I think it is, as long as it's used in historical context. I presume most of you know that Abraham Lincoln had similar views towards "negroes" as Joseph Smith? But few mention this. The standard rationale is "Joseph was a prophet, he should have known better". Well, actually, comparing Lincoln with Joseph on this subject, I think Joseph was more charitable.

Man your Google stations now - and search those LIncoln quotes.