Is all truth useful?

[_DonBradley]

Amantha,

You wrote:

DonBradley [SIC] wrote:
. I know many truths when I see them. I am not perfect, so I probably miss out on a bunch. I can certainly evaluate many truths and see they aren't useful. You have no basis for saying that God does not speak to humans or that the humans don't know it when He does.

and then responded:

Can a person trust themselves to be absolutely certain that the speaking was done by "God." No. A person only says that they are.

I didn't write the words attributed to me above. (Would you please edit the above post to reflect that fact?)

I agree quite strongly with your response to "me," and with your logic on the thread as a whole. The position you're critiquing has all the logical force of an argument that my interpretation of Aristotle's writings is brilliant because Aristotle was brilliant.

Don

[_amantha]

Amantha,

You wrote:

DonBradley [SIC] wrote:
. I know many truths when I see them. I am not perfect, so I probably miss out on a bunch. I can certainly evaluate many truths and see they aren't useful. You have no basis for saying that God does not speak to humans or that the humans don't know it when He does.

and then responded:

Can a person trust themselves to be absolutely certain that the speaking was done by "God." No. A person only says that they are.

I didn't write the words attributed to me above. (Would you please edit the above post to reflect that fact?)

I agree quite strongly with your response to "me," and with your logic on the thread as a whole. The position you're critiquing has all the logical force of an argument that my interpretation of Aristotle's writings is brilliant because Aristotle was brilliant.



Don

Sorry 'bout that. I'll do the edit presently. Carry on. ;)

[_amantha]

Charity said:

Posts such as this, with ridicule and mocking, usually mean that there is some measure of envy involved. It sounds like a case of sour grapes. I am sorry if you have tried to obtain a spiritual witness and failed to do so. It isn't too late for you to change your attitude and put yourself in a position that you can know for yourself.

To answer with the perfectly applicable words of Thomas Jefferson:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816, denouncing the doctrine of the Trinity and suggesting it to be so riddled in falsehood that only an authoritarian figure could decipher its meaning and, with a firm grip on people's spiritual and mental freedoms, thus convince the people of its truthfulness

Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush. 21 April 1803, quoted from Roche, OIA, ed. The Jeffersonian Bible (1964) p. 348

[_amantha]

What is the "correct "answer?

42

How is that useful to you?

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

Oh yeah, sorry, I should have caught that one. It's been a while but I do love the extra scene with god on the treadmill and the babelfish--very funny.

[_the road to hana]

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."

So Joseph Smith could not have been given a witness that all other religions were wrong. He had to have fabricated that.

[_the road to hana]

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.

Did Lincoln also marry other men's wives, and should we be concerned if he did?

[Guest]

the road to hana wrote, quoting examctly, "Again, however, this seems to be doublespeak, because I doubt Elder Packer is applying the same standard to the history and/or leaders of other religions."

So hana replied, "I clearly said history and/or leaders. Not just leaders."

I requested that she back up this claim. Her attempt to do so if found in this reply: "Boyd K. Packer is part of an institution that is founded on the premise that the church which Christ established became corrupt. Not just that the church itself became corrupt, but that its followers and its leaders did. That's foundational to Mormonism. The endowment ritual has in the past contained disparaging references to Christian ministers and leaders, including a reference to Satan buying up "popes and princes," which is a specific reference to clergy."

Do you see a name there? I don't. These are comments on doctrine, not on the personal lives of specific individuals.

We're tiptoeing into dead horse territory again, Charity. History and/or leaders. Is that word history invisible to you? Does the word leaders suggest to you that individual names have to be listed, and that saying that leaders are "evil" or "corrupt" or "wicked" is insufficient? Is making a specific reference in temple ritual to Catholic popes and cardinals too generic for your taste?

I wrote: To say that the doctrine of child baptism is a false doctrine is not the same as saying Pope Somebody had illegitimate children.

Road to hana replied: "By that logic, it should be acceptable to say that LDS temple worship is false doctrine, that God was once a man is false doctrine, that baptisms for the dead are false doctrine, and as long as no one is saying anything disparaging about an LDS leader, past or present, it doesn't matter how much someone criticizes the doctrines or practices.
Indeed, to say that the LDS Church is a false and apostate religion, born of the devil and filled with evil, should be all right.
If that's your standar

For anti-Mormons, I expect that. Those who fight against the Church will say those kinds of things.

What kinds of things? Those are exactly the "kinds of things" that leaders of the LDS Church have said regarding other churches, but according to you, it's really all right because no individual leaders are being disparaged in the process.

Does that make you, or the church, "anti-Christian?"

Then road to hana backs off with this remark, "Again, they don't have to specifically. They talk about leaders of other churches being "evil" and "corrupt," and the priesthood of God being removed because of the "wickedness of men," which is essentially a broad brush of the same."

Nice punt. But it doesn't work. You could not provide one reference to Elder Packer doing what you accused him of doing.

You missed the temple reference? You missed the "corrupt," "evil" and "wicked" references?


Address to CES Educators, 6 February 2004, Salt Lake Tabernacle

The world and the Christian churches have discarded the Old Testament

Ensign, November 1992

There are some among us now who have not been regularly ordained by the heads of the Church and who tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world—something of the “sky is falling, chicken licken” of the fables. They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults.

Those deceivers say that the Brethren do not know what is going on in the world or that the Brethren approve of their teaching but do not wish to speak of it over the pulpit. Neither is true. The Brethren, by virtue of traveling constantly everywhere on earth, certainly know what is going on, and by virtue of prophetic insight are able to read the signs of the times.

Do not be deceived by them—those deceivers. If there is to be any gathering, it will be announced by those who have been regularly ordained and who are known to the Church to have authority.

Come away from any others. Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.

You want evidence of an Ensign article that disparages leaders or history of other religions?

Ensign, September 1978:

Many church leaders over the centuries were miscreants of the worst kind, sowing seeds of confusion and corruption in the church.

And from the New Era:

Because of the wickedness within the church, the gifts of the Spirit ceased and people began to deny true spiritual gifts. Without revelation, church organization changed through the government of men, instead of through inspiration from God. Church offices were bought, sold, and voted on.

[_beastie]

Charity and other believers -

I'm assuming you're all familiar with the story of Jim Jones and his People's Temple.

If Jim Jones had taught his followers that it is wrong to criticize the leaders of People's Temple, (and he probably did) would you defend it?

If Jim Jones taught his followers that not all truth is useful, so pay no attention to anything other than his preaching that taught how to attain salvation, would you defend it?

If, in fact, a leader of any religion other than your own taught their followers to not criticize the leaders of that religion, and to not pay attention to 'truths' other than the basic plan to salvation they each teach, would you defend it?

[_DonBradley]

If the member comes back and says "the prophet is wrong" he/she has been listening to the wrong source.

So here's the nub of it. Latter-day Saints are told to test by personal revelation the truth of what the putative prophets say. But if their personal revelations tell them the alleged prophets are wrong, then these revelations are false. So, faithful rhetoric aside, personal revelation doesn't test prophetic revelation, it is tested by it. If personal revelation can be considered valid only if it gives the "approved" answer, it can't possibly provide a means of testing whether the approved answer is right!

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."

Ad hoc doctrine formulated on message boards is always fun and almost as often flatly inconsistent with history. (See below.)


Response to Charity by Road to Hana, I think:

So Joseph Smith could not have been given a witness that all other religions were wrong. He had to have fabricated that.

Delicious!

Charity has also badly misread D&C 9, in which Oliver Cowdery is told how to identify confirmation and disconfirmation, not merely the absence of confirmation. A "stupor of thought" by definition is not merely the absence of a "burning in the bosom." Rather, it is an experience of disconfirmatory witness on Mormonism that Providence perpetually provides to noxious online apologists.

Don

[_the road to hana]

Response to Charity by Road to Hana, I think:

So Joseph Smith could not have been given a witness that all other religions were wrong. He had to have fabricated that.

Delicious!

Charity has also badly misread D&C 9, in which Oliver Cowdery is told how to identify confirmation and disconfirmation, not merely the absence of confirmation. A "stupor of thought" by definition is not merely the absence of a "burning in the bosom." Rather, it is an experience of disconfirmatory witness on Mormonism that Providence perpetually provides to noxious online apologists.

Don

Yes, the statement was mine.