Is all truth useful?

[_charity]

I thought that only Antis took things out of context...

When you are discussing extremely important and relevant parts of the history of your religion, then, yes, ALL truth is useful. These are apples.

When you are discussing people, then, no. Some things might not be useful. These are oranges.

Extremely relevant and important? There are supreme events in history--creation, the fall, the birth and mortal ministry fo the Savior, His atonement, death and resurrection, the Restoration. Nothing else in history comes even close. Some piddly little bank failure in the early 1800's is nothing.

It is true that not all truth is useful, or needs to be spoken, but what is or isn't useful is a judgement call. The problem with Packer's comment isn't that it's not true; the problem is that he means it to be self-serving.

I think you will look in vain for a group of more selfless men than the leaders of the Church.

The same goes for information that might challenge the faith of the saints. It might only insult, or it might be expressed in a way that makes the most use of it. Either way, Packer thinks the information is anti-mormon and not worth anybody's time, no matter how it might be expressed. (He was talking to church educators, wasn't he? How much more sympathetic can you get, and still he wants them to not talk about difficult truths. That's what I mean about "self serving".)

What are "difficult" truths? I think you mean the fuzzy areas of Church history where we don't know the whole truth, only bits and pieces. There is really no sense in even discussing the bit and pieces when they are never going to provide the whole truth. Talking about it won't fill in the gaps. So why go round and round?

[_Gazelam]

Salvational truths combine longevity and relevancy; they contain both span and signifigance! Education that is only "for a season" is narrow; it pertains only to a knowledge of things as they temporarily are, like today's weather forecast or an airline schedule. Temporary facts are useful but terminal.

http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7085

[_DonBradley]

Is all truth useful in each situation? Of course not. Toddlers ought not to be told about sex or the Holocaust; and a beginning voice student shouldn't be told exactly where their skill level ranks--they should be encouraged.

However, ultimately truth--all truth--is more useful than falsehood, because, simply put, "truth" refers to a description of reality, and it is with reality that we must deal if we want to achieve the positive ends we desire. The more we learn about reality--the way things really are and how they really work, the better we can help ourselves and others.

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.

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.

Don

[Guest]

The truth that I find useful is that everything that Charity argues for is purely based on her false "spiritual witness."

It is the height of hubris to trust yourself enough to believe that God has definitively spoken to you. You have no way of knowing whether or not your senses are interpreting the incoming data (the spiritual witness) correctly. To say that you cannot possibly be wrong about your interpretation of any experience is to deify yourself.

ALL truth is useful, that is the very nature of truth. We wouldn't call it truth unless it had the capacity to guide our decision making processes--which is useful.

The real question is: Do you know truth when you see it? Who can say for sure except through the usefulness of that truth?

Is it true that a human being can trust herself to know that a god has spoken to her? No.

[_charity]

That we often do NOT learn from history is no excusing for not TRYING.

Yes, we come at this from opposite ends of the spectrum. I believe you have an authoritarian personality, which is why you’re so comfortable touting obedience and refraining from criticizing leaders.


While the theory of authoritarian personalities is not air-tight, I think it’s indisputable that, for whatever reasons, some people manifest these certain characteristics more than others:

A cluster of personality traits reflecting a desire for security and order, e.g., rigidity, highly conventional outlook, unquestioning obedience, scapegoating, desire for structured lines of authority.

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd? ... ersonality

I just wiped out a number of responses which could have been called "criticism." Just let me say, beastie, people who know the complexities of the human personality are very cautious about trying to analyze a person sight unseen. I am tired of restraining myself, and will end this post now.

[Guest]

It is the height of hubris to trust yourself enough to believe that God has definitively spoken to you. You have no way of knowing whether or not your senses are interpreting the incoming data (the spiritual witness) correctly. To say that you cannot possibly be wrong about your interpretation of any experience is to deify yourself.

Yes. Even if communication from God is considered an absolutely reliable source of truth, one cannot with absolute reliability identify such communication, because the divine communication must be identified by an incompletely reliable human being.

ALL truth is useful, that is the very nature of truth. We wouldn't call it truth unless it had the capacity to guide our decision making processes.

Beautifully put, Amantha.

This being the case, in whose interest is it to question the value of truth? Only those whose advocated position is doubtfully true, or whose ends truth will not serve.

Don

[_amantha]

That we often do NOT learn from history is no excusing for not TRYING.

Yes, we come at this from opposite ends of the spectrum. I believe you have an authoritarian personality, which is why you’re so comfortable touting obedience and refraining from criticizing leaders.


While the theory of authoritarian personalities is not air-tight, I think it’s indisputable that, for whatever reasons, some people manifest these certain characteristics more than others:

A cluster of personality traits reflecting a desire for security and order, e.g., rigidity, highly conventional outlook, unquestioning obedience, scapegoating, desire for structured lines of authority.

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd? ... ersonality

I just wiped out a number of responses which could have been called "criticism." Just let me say, beastie, people who know the complexities of the human personality are very cautious about trying to analyze a person sight unseen. I am tired of restraining myself, and will end this post now.

Again, criticism is a good thing, and if anyone needs to be criticized it is you. Get over yourself.

[_The Nehor]

The truth that I find useful is that everything that Charity argues for is purely based on her false "spiritual witness."

It is the height of hubris to trust yourself enough to believe that God has definitively spoken to you. You have no way of knowing whether or not your senses are interpreting the incoming data (the spiritual witness) correctly. To say that you cannot possibly be wrong about your interpretation of any experience is to deify yourself.

ALL truth is useful, that is the very nature of truth. We wouldn't call it truth unless it had the capacity to guide our decision making processes--which is useful.

The real question is: Do you know truth when you see it? Who can say for sure except through the usefulness of that truth?

Is it true that a human being can trust herself to know that a god has spoken to her? No.

I would say it equals the hubris that reason will lead to the correct answer.

[_DonBradley]

Just let me say, beastie, people who know the complexities of the human personality are very cautious about trying to analyze a person sight unseen.

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

[_amantha]

The truth that I find useful is that everything that Charity argues for is purely based on her false "spiritual witness."

It is the height of hubris to trust yourself enough to believe that God has definitively spoken to you. You have no way of knowing whether or not your senses are interpreting the incoming data (the spiritual witness) correctly. To say that you cannot possibly be wrong about your interpretation of any experience is to deify yourself.

ALL truth is useful, that is the very nature of truth. We wouldn't call it truth unless it had the capacity to guide our decision making processes--which is useful.

The real question is: Do you know truth when you see it? Who can say for sure except through the usefulness of that truth?

Is it true that a human being can trust herself to know that a god has spoken to her? No.

I would say it equals the hubris that reason will lead to the correct answer.

What is the "correct "answer?