How Absolute are Former Members?

[_Gadianton]

If they hold no 100% concurrence then does it not weaken the position of critics who seek to lump all Mormons together?

No. Partially because you aren't making any sense. But it does weaken your position when you flat out contradict yourself:

A percentage is only valuable to those who think on an absolute scale

Who is the inventor of the "absolute scale"? Hint: His name starts with an "M" and ends with an "a".

[_moksha]

No. Partially because you aren't making any sense. But it does weaken your position when you flat out contradict yourself:

A percentage is only valuable to those who think on an absolute scale

Who is the inventor of the "absolute scale"? Hint: His name starts with an "M" and ends with an "a".

Could you be more specific as to what you don't understand? As far as being an inventor of an absolute scale, I was arguing against a such a scale. When the Dude speaks of matters of belief in metaphysical claims being "non-falsifiable" he might just as well talk about them being non-quantifiable. There is no way to quantify belief, so the idea of trying to state a percentage of truthfulness of that believe is pointless.

Has no one here heard of relative truths or truths as applied to non-tangible items?

[_thews]

Has no one here heard of relative truths or truths as applied to non-tangible items?

There's a thread on LDS.net where they play a game answering questions with questions, and the last time I looked it was over 5000 responses. The Mormon minset is not to acknowledge what doesn't make sense, but rather point out a parallel argument to negate it, to imply that further investigation wouldn't be required, because even if it were true it wouldn't matter. In this case, your rationalization of defining how true truth must be to be "truth" is exemplifying how you've been taught to think. Truth is binary... it's either true, or it's not true. If your answer can involve levels of truth to answer it, then the question asked isn't specific enough.

You know these things to be true (fact):

1) Joseph Smith was convicted of money digging before the Book of Mormon was written using his magic rocks.

Conclusion: God used Joseph Smith's occult practice to bring forth the new doctrine... not in some other way.

Question: Does this make sense? I didn't ask if it could make sense, but rather does it make sense?

2) Polygamy/polyandry was introduced after Joseph Smith supposedly saw God, and according to Joseph Smith he was threatened with a sword for not practicing it.

Conclusion: God was so adamant about polygamy that he threatenbed to kill Joseph Smith for not practicing it.

Question: Does this make sense? Does this part of Mormonism indicate that Joseph Smith was being guided by God, or does it indicate that he was positively not being guided by God?

I could go on with a 100 more factually based arguments that logic would dictate Joseph Smith was not being guided by God, but rather by greed. While nothing is absolute when asking questions where an infinite thought process is required to answer it, what is absolute is what is false... what you know to be false based on the facts.

In summation, I believe you're asking the wrong question. The question isn't about what percentage is true, but rather what percentage you know to be false based on factual data.

PS - Data that's labeled "anti" by the LDS church isn't necessarily false, and if it is labeled "anti" it's most probably truth they don't want you to acknowledge, but rather question and refrain from finding out the truth.

[_Dr. Shades]

Mormonism is _____% true.

A percentage is only valuable to those who think on an absolute scale. Everyone decides for themselves the extent to which they believe something.

Then allow me to rephrase. Fill in the blank:

I, Moksha, have decided for myself that I believe Mormonism is ____% true.

[_Gadianton]

Moksha,

I think you are confusing a number of issues. Belief can be quantifiable as a percentage and independent of whether the statements of belief are metaphysical or not. But quantifying belief is different than quantifying the percentage of truth contained in the statements of belief. Further, "non-falsifiable" and "non-quantifiable" have nothing to do with each other. Having got that off my chest, I want to avoid dwelling on what I see as a tangent to your real issue which is this:

If you want, this on balance approach might contain a percentage like quality, but what if I add in weighted factors like whether something makes me happy?

I think this is your real issue. You want religion to be respected according to different kinds of "truth". Are critics missing the real target because they worry about whether God really called Joseph Smith rather than if it makes Moksha happy to believe God called Joseph Smith?

[_moksha]

Moksha,

I think you are confusing a number of issues. Belief can be quantifiable as a percentage and independent of whether the statements of belief are metaphysical or not.

"How much do you believe on a scale of 1 to 5 with five being the highest of my meaningless measuring scale?"

But quantifying belief is different than quantifying the percentage of truth contained in the statements of belief.

"How much do you feel your beliefs are true on this same 1 to 5 scale?"

Further, "non-falsifiable" and "non-quantifiable" have nothing to do with each other.

In the analogy they have everything to do with one another: They cannot be accomplished.

Having got that off my chest, I want to avoid dwelling on what I see as a tangent to your real issue which is this:

They were responses to questions. That is more of a natural byproduct of a thread. Tangents R Us.

You want religion to be respected according to different kinds of "truth". Are critics missing the real target because they worry about whether God really called Joseph Smith rather than if it makes Moksha happy to believe God called Joseph Smith?

The word truth needs to stand double duty in the English language much like the word hot. Never quite know if the burrito is too hot temperature wise or too hot seasoning wise.

Truth is used to describe both elements of the physical world such as the existence or non-existence of golden plates or a first vision, and to describe the quality or veracity of our beliefs, as in "I believe that to be true" and the metaphysical involving the existence of God. The first can be subject to outside verification while the later cannot.

I originally asked the question as to whether some critics have gone from believing all the Church is true to a position of believing none of it to be true.

As to missing the target, I think they are indeed missing it if they fail to see the many good things the Church continues to do everyday - like having members on the ground this very minute in Haiti helping out with relief efforts. It is quantifiably true that they serve Man and I believe it to be true that they serve God. You will have your own individual truths beyond what you can prove.

... rather than if it makes Moksha happy to believe God called Joseph Smith?

Seems rather snarky.

[Rikiti]

.

[_Inconceivable]

Has no one here heard of relative truths or truths as applied to non-tangible items?

Truth is binary... it's either true, or it's not true. If your answer can involve levels of truth to answer it, then the question asked isn't specific enough.

PS - Data that's labeled "anti" by the LDS church isn't necessarily false, and if it is labeled "anti" it's most probably truth they don't want you to acknowledge, but rather question and refrain from finding out the truth.

Excellent points, Thews.

Moksha,

A pig is still a pig even if it's wearing lipstick. It's just simply a pig with lipstick.

Some would argue or even believe that truth can be bent. At this point, we have changed the subject. Now we are discussing ethics.

So long as you keep tangling these two incongruent concepts I just can't take you seriously.

[_Gadianton]

How much do you believe on a scale of 1 to 5 with five being the highest of my meaningless measuring scale?

Didn't you ever watch the McLaughlin hour? On a scale of zero to ten, zero being nil and ten being absolute metaphysical certitude, how confident are you that:

a) Man has landed on the moon
b) Palm trees grow in Florida
c) Joseph Smith saw an angel
d) God exists

Your objections so far to "quantification of belief" are hollow and demonstrate you haven't thought this through, at all.

How much do you feel your beliefs are true on this same 1 to 5 scale?

More evidence of your confusion, Moksha. Consider the difference between these two statements:

a) I'm 95% sure my wife is pregnant (Thanks msnobody)
b) My wife is 95% pregnant

In the analogy they have everything to do with one another: They cannot be accomplished.

Unfalsifiable means you can't prove something false like, I can't prove there aren't invisible aliens in my room zapping me with stunners at the same time my body goes into sleep paralysis. However, I can be 75% confident - or rather, have some degree of confidence that Aliens are in my room zapping me with stunners because among other things, I'm a Buddhist on Tuesdays and a Star Friend on Fridays.

The word truth needs to stand double duty in the English language much like the word hot. Never quite know if the burrito is too hot temperature wise or too hot seasoning wise.

Dictionary.com is nine steps ahead of you.

Truth is used to describe both elements of the physical world such as the existence or non-existence of golden plates or a first vision, and to describe the quality or veracity of our beliefs, as in "I believe that to be true"

There is no such definition of truth, anywhere, "Truth is the quality or veracity of our beliefs"

"I believe that to be true" is stating an ambiguous level of confidence in, for example, a hypothesized truth of correspondence (between a sentence and the 'real world'). by the way, you just contradicted yourself rather badly, Moksha, In your first sentence you said "truth" describes "elements of the physical world" such as "the first vision (where Joseph Smith SAW GOD) and your second or third sense of "truth" describes the metaphysical, such as the existence of God.

and the metaphysical involving the existence of God. The first can be subject to outside verification while the later cannot.

Yet either can be object of our belief, belief that exists in greater or lesser degrees, and greater or lesser degrees can be represented on a scale of one to ten.

I originally asked the question as to whether some critics have gone from believing all the Church is true to a position of believing none of it to be true.

An ambiguous question given "the church is true" is sort of a null hypothesis that is accepted or rejected and "the church" represents a nebulous mass of tenets, ideals, doctrines and so on that by nature of stakes involved -- accepting or rejecting in total -- are assumed to be "core".

As to missing the target, I think they are indeed missing it if they fail to see the many good things the Church continues to do everyday - like having members on the ground this very minute in Haiti helping out with relief efforts.

No one has ever uttered the statement "the church is not true" with the intent of saying that the church has never done anything good or there is not a single true proposition ever uttered by a church leader.

It is quantifiably true that they serve Man and I believe it to be true that they serve God.

Since when we serve our fellow man we are only in the service of our God, then serving God is also quantifiably true even if the existence of God is not falsifiable.

Seems rather snarky.

And the false position you created for critics in order to make them look bad wasn't "snarky"?