Three methods of discovering "the truth"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Milesius
_Emeritus
Posts: 559
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Three methods of discovering "the truth"

Post by _Milesius »

Sethbag wrote:
3. Some things bronze-age goatherders in the Middle East wrote down, representing an amalgamation of history, old regional mythology re-cast into a distinctly local flavor, and new local mythology.


To whom are you referring here? Certainly not the authors of the various books of the Bible. Traditional dates would place only the earliest parts of the Bible in the Bronze Age; the rest is Iron Age and later. But surely you know this because you wouldn't spout off on a topic without sufficient knowledge concerning it.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Three methods of discovering "the truth"

Post by _Gadianton »

Keithb is right, just because the Book of Mormon asserts this formula, doesn't mean the formula has any credibility. I mean, if you buy that this formula might work, then you're 99.9% of the way there.

Yahoo Bot wrote:All too often, ex-Mormons (or phony current Mormons willing to crucify their savior afresh) have no clue as to the Christian formulation for understanding truth.


Yahoo Bot, I disagree on two points here. First, ex-Mormons such as myself would never crucify the savior, I might crucify his bad reasoning in a debate, but I would leave the person alone and extend my hand in friendship. It's TBMs such as those who brought Korihor before Alma that you have to worry about. All it takes is a bit of a change in perspective, and Jesus is the one getting ran over.

Also, the "Christian" formulation for understanding truth has little to do with Mormonism as Christians will tell you. "Sola Scriptora" sets the standard, and they'll call your citations of Galatians to get "good feelings = truth confirmed" as proof-texting.
_KevinSim
_Emeritus
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:31 am

Re: Three methods of discovering "the truth"

Post by _KevinSim »

Gadianton wrote:Also, the "Christian" formulation for understanding truth has little to do with Mormonism as Christians will tell you. "Sola Scriptora" sets the standard, and they'll call your citations of Galatians to get "good feelings = truth confirmed" as proof-texting.

Who needs Galatians? Good feelings means truth is confirmed because there's no other way for God to confirm the truth, not because any book of scripture says one way or the other.

Well, that's not entirely true. God can reveal truths to humans any way He pleases. But if for some reason God hasn't revealed any of His truths to some individual, and it's important to that individual that s/he know something about God, then what other way does that individual have to establish a certain foundation for that individual's personal theology, if that individual can't ask God a question and count on God providing a kernel of truth s/he can use as that foundation?

That's why that method of discovering the truth has to work; what any book people consider to be scripture, says, has nothing to do with it.

In fact, if one cannot ask God if God considers a book to be scripture, and count on God giving a response, how in the world can that one determine that that book is scripture in the first place?
KevinSim

Reverence the eternal.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Three methods of discovering "the truth"

Post by _Gadianton »

Who needs Galatians? Good feelings means truth is confirmed because there's no other way for God to confirm the truth, not because any book of scripture says one way or the other.


Sure, if you say so, Kev.

But the point was, Yahoo Bot claimed that ex-Mo's don't understand the "Christian" formulation for understanding truth. Not exactly relevant if his own church doesn't understand it either.
_KevinSim
_Emeritus
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:31 am

Re: Three methods of discovering "the truth"

Post by _KevinSim »

Nightlion wrote:Because pride of necessity had to cover up the incompetence of LDS spiritual leadership good feelings was accepted as a legitimate substitute for the power of the Holy Ghost. People who want the church to be true will have good feelings about it.

That may happen a lot, but if the people really think about what they're doing they'll realize that if they actually are biased one way or the other then they can't count on God answering their question.

The whole idea is that God will give the person an answer if the person really needs the answer, and can't get the answer in any other way. If the person isn't ready to receive either a yes or a no answer from God, then where's the need for God to get involved at all? If the person isn't prepared to change the whole rest of that person's life depending on whatever God tells her/him, then why in the world should God get involved in the process at all?

That was the challenge for me, anyhow. I got that initial good feeling, quickly concluded God must have inspired the Book of Mormon, but almost as quickly realized that I had wanted that positive answer, and therefore realized that I couldn't count on God having provided that good feeling. I worked on it for a long time before I finally got to the point where I was willing to base the rest of my life on either a yes or no answer, but I eventually made it, and that's why I'm a Latter-day Saint today.
KevinSim

Reverence the eternal.
_KevinSim
_Emeritus
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:31 am

Re: Three methods of discovering "the truth"

Post by _KevinSim »

Gadianton wrote:But the point was, Yahoo Bot claimed that ex-Mo's don't understand the "Christian" formulation for understanding truth.

Is there a Christian "formulation for understanding truth"? Other than if it says it in the Bible it must be true, that is? I've never seen such a Christian "formulation" that made any persuasive sense at all. How have Biblical Christians come to the conclusion that the Bible is the fountain of all truth, after all?

Gadianton wrote:Not exactly relevant if his own church doesn't understand it either.

Oh, I'm not convinced that the LDS Church doesn't understand it. I would hazard a guess that Gordon Hinckley understood it perfectly well; I wouldn't put it past Thomas Monson to understand it too.
KevinSim

Reverence the eternal.
_KevinSim
_Emeritus
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:31 am

Re: Three methods of discovering "the truth"

Post by _KevinSim »

jon wrote:You forgot the additional clause:
''What if God answers my prayers with good feelings about the scriptures being false?''

''Oh, that's Satan giving you those good feelings, you can tell the difference because they are against what it says in the scriptures that you are praying about, that say God will give you a good feeling about them. So, if it confirms what the scriptures say then you can believe it. If it doesn't you should disbelieve it even though it may be the exact same feeling....''

That's not what I say at all. If someone gets to the point where that someone really needs to know something with certainty that that someone can use as a foundation for her/his own personal theology, and really is prepared to accept either a yes or a no answer, and base the whole rest of that someone's life on that yes or no answer, and if in that case the someone does get "good feelings about the scriptures being false," then in that case that person has discovered that the scriptures are false. That person can use the falseness of the scriptures as the foundation for that person's personal theology, and proceed from that point to learn more things about God.
KevinSim

Reverence the eternal.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Three methods of discovering "the truth"

Post by _Gadianton »

Kev wrote:I've never seen such a Christian "formulation" that made any persuasive sense at all.


Thanks Kev, for implying that I am right. Mormons and Christians formulate their standard for "truth" differently, which was the only point I made. I couldn't give a rat's ass as to whose method is slightly less insane than the other.

Kev wrote:Oh, I'm not convinced that the LDS Church doesn't understand it. I would hazard a guess that Gordon Hinckley understood it perfectly well; I wouldn't put it past Thomas Monson to understand it too.


Would you really hazard that guess, Kev? Considering GBH didn't "know too much about" his own doctrine? lol
_Hoops
_Emeritus
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:11 am

Re: Three methods of discovering "the truth"

Post by _Hoops »

Is there a Christian "formulation for understanding truth"?
As you state it? No. I'll grant you that Christian truth begins with the presupposition that there is some Deity.

Other than if it says it in the Bible it must be true, that is?
Simplistic, but, yes.

I've never seen such a Christian "formulation" that made any persuasive sense at all.
Okay. Others feel differently.

How have Biblical Christians come to the conclusion that the Bible is the fountain of all truth, after all?
They haven't. They've come to the conclusion that the Bible contains all the Truth necessary for salvation. Two different things.
_hatersinmyward
_Emeritus
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 3:12 am

Re: Three methods of discovering "the truth"

Post by _hatersinmyward »

The Mormon Ritual:

1.Now You See.

2.The Elders have decided to 'Pull the Wool Over Your Eyes and Trick Others into doing the Same'

3.You See No More.

4.The Church collapses if anyone discovers what just happened.(If you don't kill yourself first)
Post Reply